Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRANSPORT BILL (STANDING COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS)

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I apologise for not having given you notice of it. It is on a matter of which I have learnt only in the last minute or two. I felt that it was necessary to raise it at this stage. It arises partly from our new procedures, with the possibility of announcements at 11 am. I apologise also to the Leader of the House for not having had the chance to inform him about it.
I understand that there are problems arising on the Committee dealing with the Transport Bill and about the procedures in operation there. I make no comment about them at the moment, but we wish to inquire about them in the next hour that is available to us.
I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how the new procedure for the interruption of business would operate at 11 am. I presume that if the Leader of the House wished to make a statement about the Transport Bill—there having been the opportunity to have discussions in the meantime—it would be perfectly possible for him to do so at 11 am, if he so decided. We would then be able to put questions to him in the light of any statement that he might make. I am not sure yet whether he would find it necessary to make such a statement.
I raise the point of order as we have not operated this procedure before and in order to safeguard the position. I should be grateful if we could have your ruling. Mr. Speaker, on how we might proceed.

Mr. Speaker: The new circumstances in which we meet on Fridays ensure, first, that if there is notice of any private notice questions I let my decision be

known at 10 am. It is then stated on the notice boards that there is to be a private notice question at 11 am. Secondly, if there is a statement to be made, a notice to that effect will appear on the indicator at verious times between 10 am and 11 am.

PETITIONS

Shephalbury School, Stevenage

Mr. Bowen Wells: I have the honour and privilege, Mr. Speaker, to present to you a petition:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain &amp; Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled. The Humble Petition of Parents and Staff of Shephalbury School, Stevenage, Sheweth That the Hertfordshire County Council proposed to close Shephalbury School, Stevenage under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, and that this decision is strongly opposed by the local community since it is unjustified. Wherefore your Petitioners pray That Your Honourable House will by all possible means seek a reversal of the decision to close Shephalbury School. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &amp;c.
Two hundred and fifty people—parents, teachers and students—presented the petition to me and have begged me to bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, as they have built up a community school in Stevenage of which they are very proud. They are proud because they have put their own work into that school—building a swimming pool, and so on. They have provided an alternative type of secondary education which needs to be valued and treasured. They wish, therefore, to make certain that their views on the closure, which they think is unjustified, are properly considered by the whole Commons and the Ministers concerned.
I beg leave, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to present the petition to you.

To lie upon the Table.

M25 Road

Mr. Archie Hamilton: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition from a number of my constituents urging the deferral of the building of any further sections of the M25 road.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that I presented a petition not very long ago


urging that the M25 should be completed as soon as possible. There is a certain contradiction here. The House might be interested to know my view on this matter. It is one of sustained and remorseless ambivalence. Uncomfortable as it may be to sit on the fence, it is certainly much more uncomfortable in this case to get off it.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of residents of Leather-head and Ashtead,
SHEWETH
That the construction of any further sections of the M25 should be deferred until more is known of the effects on local roads and of the effects, particularly on children, of emissions from vehicles;
That the cost benefit analysis and traffic predictions which have been made are substantially inaccurate, and that an independent audit of the data on which they are based is needed;
That the estimated £440 million (at 1977 prices) which the scheme is to cost would be better spent on restoring resources cut from hospitals, education and other social services, and from road maintenance.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will by all possible means support the deferment of further construction on the M25 until more is known of the effects on local roads and of the effects, particularly on children, of emissions from vehicles.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
This petition and a similarly worded petition are signed by 1,625 of my constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition supported by over 200,000 people who wish to make their opposition to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill known to this House.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom,
SHEWETH
That the present measure before Parliament to restrict the availability of abortion would be detrimental to a great number of

women, taking away a woman's essential right to avoid an accidental and unwanted pregnancy and thereby enforcing motherhood and particularly penalising women on low incomes who are unable to afford a private abortion.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that no legislation be passed which would restrict the circumstances in which women can have legal abortions, believing that women should have the right to free National Health Service abortions and that restrictions will lead to enforced pregnancies and motherhood, unwanted children or dangerous back-street abortions.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
I cannot follow the remorseless ambivalence of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) in regard to this petition. Far from it being more comfortable to sit on the fence, in this case it is certainly much more comfortable to come off the fence and firmly to support what this petition represents, namely, the views of the vast majority of women in this House and in the country, and many men as well.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Tony Marlow: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition supported by 2.500 of my constituents concerning today's business.
I shall be very brief, because I know that there is no one in the Chamber today who wishes to waste any time whatever. The petition reads:
The Humble Petition of we the undersigned prays that Parliament do not allow the original terms of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill to be weakened either by raising the time limit for abortion beyond the proposed 20 weeks or by altering those clauses which require that 'grave risk to life' and 'substantial risk of serious injury' should be the criteria for abortion, since these clauses will reduce the amount of killing of unborn children.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF LORDS (ELECTIONS)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, presented a Bill to provide for the election of members of the House of Lords by proportional representation; and to provide that only the members so elected shall be qualified to vote in that House: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed [Bill 144].

Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. May I seek your clarification and guidance, particularly as regards the conduct of the debates on the first few amendments? I have no criticism of your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker—I think that it is wholly commendable—but there might be a good deal of worry and confusion about the way in which the debates proceed.
Perhaps I may give an example by referring to new clause 1 and amendment No. 3. New clause 1 seeks to make two changes in the wording of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, but I want to deal only with the second, because it relates to the time limit. The time limit is specifically identified in the 1929 Act as 28 weeks. The new clause proposes 24 weeks. There lies the difficulty, because subsequently we shall move in due course to amendment No. 3, which is selected, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and others, who will be arguing for a time limit of 27 weeks, and that amendment is to be discussed with amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison)—he will be arguing for 24 weeks—and amendment No. 48, on which the argument will be for 22 weeks.
My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. In the event of new clause I being accepted, that will include 24 weeks. Will that mean that the other amendments to which I have referred will automatically fall? It is very important that hon. Members should have it clearly understood what they are voting for. If we vote for new clause 1, that means 24 weeks and the other amendments must, by definition, fall. I should be glad of your clarification of the matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: First, perhaps I may say that I spent a considerable time, as the House would expect me to do, in the selection of amendments, and I seek

neither commendation nor criticism of it, because this is a discretion vested in the Speaker.
The first new clause amends a totally different Act, the 1929 Act, and the other debate is, therefore, separate, and it would not fall. The debate on amendment No. 3 will still be in order whatever is decided on new clause I. That is my ruling. Otherwise, I would have bracketed them together and we would have taken them all together.

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I would not be presumptuous enough to comment on the manner in which you have selected the amendments, but I am, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is, trying to help the House. In amendments Nos. 3, 2 and 48, there are various options before the House on the number of weeks at which it may be decided that, in certain circumstances, an abortion can take place.
I observe, Mr. Speaker, that you have not selected the amendment in my name—the only amendment that I have on the Amendment Paper—which clearly indicates that the time should be 22 weeks. Given what we have all read in the reports of the Committee proceedings, especially the statement made by the Government spokesman, the House would certainly want the option to decide whether it wants the period to be 22 weeks. Unfortunately, the House does not have that choice as a result of the selection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly criticising my selection. That is out of order and cannot be allowed. I have made the selection, and it is unfair to the House if we are to have an argument—for or against the Bill—about whether that amendment or any other ought to be selected. I cannot allow such a discussion to continue.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Question is put on the amendments in the order in which they are on the Amendment Paper, if the Question is put to amendment No. 3 and it is passed, I take it that the House will not then have the opportunity of having the Question put on amendment No. 2. Would you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we come to that grouping, allow amendment No. 2 to be taken


as a manuscript amendment to amendment No. 3 so that the House may have the opportunity of deciding on 24 weeks as well as 27 weeks? That in no way disputes your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, but it is a means whereby the House might be enabled to take the decision it might wish to take.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I want to help the House as much as I can. I will make a statement in a short while when I have considered the point that he has raised. I think that it is quite likely that it will be in the affirmative.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make the same point in relation to amendment No. 48, which reduces the period to 22 weeks? It would be unfortunate if there was an affirmative vote that precluded discussion on amendment No. 48.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look at that and make a statement in a short while.

New Clause 1

AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE INFANT LIFE (PRESERVATION) ACT 1929.

'The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be amended—

(a) in subsection (1) of section 1 by leaving out the words "child capable of being born alive" and substituting therefor the words "capable of sustaining independent life"; and
(b) by substituting for subsection (2) of section 1 the following subsection—

"(2) For the purposes of this Act, a child is capable of sustaining independent life if and only if the woman has been pregnant for a period of 24 weeks or more.".'.—[Miss Richardson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Ennals: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out "being born alive" and insert "sustaining independent life".

Mr. Ennals: For reasons that have already been given in the exchanges on the points of order, it would be difficult

to confine the moving of this new clause to excluding the generalities of clause 1 of the Bill, which is the essential part of the Bill and which sets out the basis on which its supporters aim to reduce greatly the number of abortions carried out in Great Britain. I do not seek to interfere in what has been said about voting, but the issues themselves will be affected by other amendments that will be moved by my hon. Friends.
Clause 1 goes to the very heart of a number of the moral problems which I know disturb hon. Members and people up and down the country. I doubt whether Members of Parliament have received as many representations on any other issue. We have received representations from people who feel very deeply about this issue.
What is life? Does life, in the sense of terminating life, begin at the moment of conception? That argument could be, and has been, put forward by some. It could be argued that every part of a person's body is alive, and this argument could vary from a beneficial heart or a beneficial kidney, which are essentially live parts of a live body, to a malignant tumour which itself is alive and part of a live body. No one would say that no part of a live human being should be removed in any circumstances. I know of no one who has put forward that argument. There are men and women among us who have the heart, the kidneys or the eyes of another human being who is now dead.
At the other extreme there are women who died in the prime of their lives because an abortion was not carried out at the right time. Children are born congenitally handicapped for the same reason; sometimes they are grossly malformed for the rest of their lives.
What is life in the context of the Bill? Very few, and certainly no one in the House, would be evil enough to wish to destroy a human life. Every human being has a right to live, as set out in the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child. But surely a live child is one capable of sustaining a separate and independent existence. This is the thesis that we seek to set forth in the new clause and in amendment No. 13. I believe that this issue is fundamental to the debate which will take place in the House today and possibly on other days.
The Bill, if it contained clause 1 without amendment and the new clause, would lead to more mothers dying in childbirth, more children born handicapped, more unwanted and unloved children and more social problems that we as a society would have to face. It would mean more back-street abortions and more death and disease for young girls and women because of the absence of properly controlled, supervised and reasonably legalised abortions. It would give freedom to the charlatans whose objective is to earn their living as they did before the 1967 Act, at the expense of unfortunate pregnant women. It would mean an abortion performed not only outside the law but sometimes later than should be permitted and in dangerous and insanitary circumstances.
If it is murder that we are talking about—and some have used that emotional term in relation to the Bill—I believe that the Bill, unless we are able to change it, is likely to promote murder.
Let me make my position clear. I voted for the 1967 Act. As I said on Second Reading, I have never been in favour of abortion on demand. I speak as one who, first as Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Security with the same responsibilities as the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, and secondly as Secretary of State, had responsibility for the follow-up to the 1967 Bill and the responsibility to use, which I did, as rigidly and effectively as I could, the powers of licensing and inspection.
10 am
Without the new clause and amendment No. 13, I submit that we shall find ourselves going back to the dark days that preceded the 1967 Act. It may be that some hon. Members have failed to recall, or were too young to know, the misery of the circumstances that existed for many thousands of people before the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) put his measure on the statute book.
The figures show that that Act has worked well. Only one death was recorded in 1977 after an illegal, or induced but unspecified, abortion compared with 22 in 1968. The number of discharges from hospital after septic abortion—a

common result of botched, illegal abortions—fell from 3,110 in 1968 to only 600) in 1975. As regards hospital admissions, the number of cases where treatment was recorded following illegal abortion fell from 520 in 1968 to 180 in 1975. I do not have the figures for a later date than that. Illegal abortion offences known to the police have dropped from 257 in 1967 to only 10 in 1978.
One could proceed with these and other figures to show that, on balance, the 1967 Act, which was a bold experiment has, as a result of the wisdom of the House at that time and the way in which successive Secretaries of State have sought to carry out their responsibilities, dramatically changed the situation.
Clearly, the medical profession is very much involved with the wording of new clause 1 and amendment No. 13. For the record, I should like to read what I believe is a remarkable letter, published in the Lancet on 2 February, from 70 of the most distinguished doctors in this country, including Sir George Godber, who was principal medical officer at the Department of Health and Social Security when I was Minister of State, as well as many other leading figures—presidents of Royal colleges speaking with the great authority not only of their profession but of the colleges that they represent. I read the letter because every word is germane to what is proposed this morning. It states:
We write representing a broad band of medical opinion to express our concern over the proposals in Mr. Corrie's Abortion (Amendment) Bill which is due for its next stage in the House of Commons"—
today.
This Bill, which was presented as a moderate measure to eliminate very late abortion, is in fact a most swingeing attack which would, according to one of its supporters, cut abortion by two-thirds and 'destroy the charities'.
We do not oppose reduction of the upper time limit to 24 weeks, however, 20 weeks, even with exceptions for fetal abnormalities, is too early and will cause suffering in the very small number of severe cases where, unhappily, late abortion is necessary. An upper time limit of 20 weeks will inevitably mean that many doctors will be unwilling to do terminations after 16 or 18 weeks because of the impossibility of being absolutely certain about gestation dates.
I should add, as an aside, that they will face the full rigours of the law, and that


is a risk that they are not prepared to take.
As practising doctors we know that the 1967 Abortion Act…'reduced human suffering'. We know that the abuses that did exist in the early stages have now been eliminated and that, with one exception, the Act was beginning to work well.
I shall not quote the one exception, because there is a later amendment about putting heavier responsibilities on the National Health Service.
The last paragraph of the letter reads:
Septic abortion, which caused so much illness and suffering, has been greatly reduced by the 1967 Act. A report from the DHSS for 1973–75 showed that only 10 of 235 maternal deaths in those three years were due to illegal abortion compared with 98 out of 579 in the years 1964–66. Because of the Bill's restrictive nature there is a real danger that if Mr. Corrie's Bill is passed by Parliament, septic abortion could become a scourge in this country once again.
As I said, that letter is signed by 70 of the most highly respected doctors, consultants, gynaecologists and general practitioners in this country.

Mr. Abse: My right hon. Friend may have observed that Mr. Speaker pointed out that the amendment is concerned with a totally different Act—the Act relating to the destruction of children at birth. I have not yet heard one word why my right hon. Friend wants that Act altered. That Act was specifically excluded by the measure introduced by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). Will my right hon. Friend explain, what he has not yet begun to explain, why he wants the child destruction Act altered and in what way? So far, all we have heard has been a Second Reading speech which has not been directed to the specific amendment.

Mr. Ennals: I must assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has not read the new clause. Paragraph (b)(2) states:
For the purposes of this Act, a child is capable of sustaining independent life if and only if the woman has been pregnant for a period of 24 weeks or more.
The period is an essential part. That is why I have moved the amendment. The paragraph above refers to a
child capable of being born alive".
That same point is made in amendment No. 13. Rather than deal with "being

born alive", we deal with the question of "sustaining independent life".
I was referring to the attitude of the medical profession. One remarkable thing about the medical profession is the extent to which its attitude has dramatically changed in the 12 years following the passing of the Abortion Act 1967.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I have been reading the new clause carefully and listening intently to my right hon. Friend, who at one time was Secretary of State for Social Services, including health. What is the child destruction Act to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred?

Mr. Ennals: That question must be put to the hon. Member for Pontypool. As far as I know, there is no Act of that title.
I move on to the question of the medical profession, because it has sought to give its answer to the difficult questions: what is life? What is sustainable life? During how many weeks from gestation is it possible to say that a foetus is alive?
As regards a change to 20 weeks, another group of representative doctors has said:
In our view, this change…is misguided, and reflects a misunderstanding of foetal viability. To say that a foetus is viable means that it is capable of independent life—it has reached the stage of development when its heart can beat outside the mother and its lungs are sufficiently developed to be able to take in air. This stage has never been knowingly reached before 24 weeks gestation, and only rarely as early as that; the limiting factor is that before this stage the lungs are solid and cannot take in air.
As I have said, it is a question of what is life. Is a foetus simply a part of the body that is living within a body? Is it something that can sustain life independently? The doctors continue:
Technological advances in perinatal care have increased the chances of survival of babies born after 25-26 weeks, but can do nothing to enable a foetus born before 24 weeks to survive. In other words, it is survivability rather than viability which has changed and will no doubt continue to change.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister read a letter from Professor Reynolds to the Committee on 21 November? Professor Reynolds runs the


biggest unit in the country for the preservation of the premature baby. His letter pointed out that at 28 or 29 weeks 85 per cent. of premature babies survive. At 24 to 26 weeks, 50 per cent. survive. Although no baby has survived at 23 weeks, Professor Reynolds pointed out that such babies are very much alive when born. Although no baby has survived at that age, he anticipates that with modern developments it will not be long before that is possible. He made it clear that he is neither pro nor anti abortion. He is concerned with saving the lives of infants.

Mr. Ennals: The Minister also confirmed that there is no proven record that a child has lived after a gestation period of 24 weeks. There have been a number of scandalous rumours. Perhaps they were spread by well-intentioned people. It has been suggested that the cry of a child has been heard or that a foetus could live on its own. The Department of Health and Social Security and the Minister—with his own sense of responsibility—looking into all those charges and made a statement in Standing Committee. I hope that he will repeat that statement. The examination showed that in no single case had a child had independent existence. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that statement later

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received a letter from Professor Macnaughton, of Glasgow university's department of obstetrics and gynaecology, in which lie draws my attention to the remarks of Professor Reynolds? Professor Macnaughton said:
I have been in touch with UCH. There are 2 survivors at 24-26 weeks. One is severely mentally retarded and has a shunt for hydrocephalus, the other has sensory severe hearing loss".
There were no survivors before 24 weeks. I think that my right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear.

Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend as he has given specific confirmation of something that no hon. Member should question, whatever he may feel about the morality of the issue. We are taking a difficult decision, but we should not be in any doubt about the facts. The facts are important.
No doctor is happy to perform a late abortion. He feels only justified in doing so in exceptional circumstances. I cannot deny that I have sometimes disagreed with some of the conclusions of the medical profession on other issues. However, on this issue the medical profession is united. Not only are the Royal colleges united, but the British Medical Association is also united and it speaks on behalf of the vast majority of doctors.

Dr. Alan Glyn: At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made a very important point. I wonder whether he is prepared to elaborate on it. He said that it was a question of proving the period of gestation. However, that is one of the most difficult things to establish. Women are often unaware of when gestation began.

Mr. Ennals: Doctors as well as women cannot produce proof as to when gestation started. In imposing a law that will be binding upon the medical profession, we may be imposing restrictions that cannot properly be fulfilled. That is serious. It is the medical profession and women who are bound by the Bill. That is why doctors have been bursting with indigation and are anxious that the House should understand the dilemma in which they will be placed if the Bill is enacted.
Part of the purpose of the new clause and of the amendment is to ease that problem. I am confident that doctors do not want to perform late abortions. They want to perform abortions as early as possible. Preference for early rather than late abortions has also been expressed by women. A recent study of women who had had ante-natal screenings for neural tube defects described how dreadful the experience could be. Women are concerned that any impediment to their access to abortion may make things worse.
The group of doctors concluded:
However, we consider that the best way to increase the proportion of abortions carried out before 12 weeks is not to restrict the numbers of late abortions but to improve women's access to early NHS abortions. The other obvious way of reducing late abortion in particular, and abortion in general, is to ensure a contraceptive service which is accessible to everyone who needs it".
There are many other arguments, but many hon. Members are waiting to speak. The new clause, the amendment and the question of what is life are deep


moral issues for the House. We face those issues in the consciousness that the public are divided. However, I think that a large majority are in favour of the amendments and that they are against the Bill in its present form. As representatives of our constituents, we must face the moral problems without question and with courage.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My right hon. Friend has stressed the moral issues involved. Does he concede that the moral issues are no longer before us, because supporters of the Bill have now conceded that this is an abortion Bill? Therefore, they have accepted that the facts of abortion are facts of detail.

Mr. Ennals: The case put forward by those who stand by the 1967 Act has been immensely strengthened by the statements and conclusions reached by those who support the Bill. It is a question not of whether there should be abortion but of certain circumstances and of where the responsibilities lie. The crux of the issue is, what is life? Does a human life have independent survival? That is the argument put forward in the new clause and in the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to reply to the point of order that was raised earlier.
I have looked at amendments Nos. 3, 2 and 48. If amendment No. 3 is carried, amendment Nos. 2 and 48 will fall. If amendment No. 3 does not carry, a separate Division is possible on amendment No. 2. If amendment No. 2 does not carry, a separate Division is possible on amendment No. 48. We shall work along those lines.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that copies of that statement be provided in the Lobbies to avoid great confusion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I honestly believe that, if I speak slowly, it is quite simple. I shall repeat what I said.
If amendment No. 3 falls or is defeated, it is possible to call amendment No. 2. If amendment No. 2 is defeated, it is possible to call amendment No. 48.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek further clarification? Am I right in thinking that each amendment will not be the subject of independent debate but that the House will debate the merits of all three amendments at one and the same time?

Mr. Speaker: I have already suggested that list of selection.

Mr. William Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) performed a valuable service to the House in explaining the purpose of new clause 1 in language that I hope will be understood by every hon. Member. During the past few days I have been approached by several hon. Members asking exactly why new clause 1 has been tabled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which has concerned us throughout the debate on abortion, right back to the 1967 Act. I believe that my hon. Friend is unfair to suggest that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) ignored the 1929 Act. The 28 weeks, which is often referred to as the existing time limit, is precisely the time limit in the 1929 Act. There is no mention of it in the 1967 Act.
We have two objects in introducing new clause 1. First, we wish to seek to define viability more accurately. Secondly, we wish to insert a time limit of 24 weeks and avoid referring back to the 1929 Act.
We have sought to deal with the controversial question of viability partly because of the cases that come up—and I was expecting one in this morning's newspapers—of a foetus on a slab which made a noise, and it was therefore assumed that that foetus was viable and capable of independent life. Over the months and years while this controversy has been continuing, these cases have been repeatedly produced, have hit the headlines and, one after the other, have been shot down by independent medical analysis and investigation by the Department. I could quote each one, and not a single one bears objective examination.
Therefore, we are proposing in this new clause to redefine viability, mainly to ensure that a doctor will not be prosecuted for aborting a foetus that


shows signs of life but which is, nevertheless, incapable of maintaining an independent existence. That is the main purpose of the first part of new clause 1. If the law remains unchanged, doctors will still be at risk of being taken to court and having to prove that that foetus was incapable of an independent existence.
I cannot forbear from remarking that three lady hon. Members are present in the Chamber. The rest of us are men. None of us has had or is likely to have an abortion. The three ladies present are all against the Bill. They reflect the massive majority of opinion, particularly among women, against the Bill. Indeed, one of the features of the campaign is the remarkable unanimity outside the House against the Bill among professional, medical and nursing organisations and virtually all female organisations, right across the political spectrum. It is a remarkable example of public opinion being massively in favour of the 1967 Act, with the one additional provision of a time limit of 24 weeks as against 28.
May I return to the question of viability? I wish to read into the record a long letter from the Department. I apologise for its length, but it is important to have it on the record. It is written on behalf of the Minister for Health.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before the hon. Member reads the letter, will he assist the House on one point? In the second part of the new clause it is stated:
For the purpose of this Act, a child is capable of sustaining independent life if and only if the woman has been pregnant for a period of 24 weeks".
Am I right in thinking that pregnancy for that period will be treated only as prima facie evidence that the child is capable of sustaining an independent existence?

Mr. Hamilton: To be honest, I do not know what the answer is. Before I sit down, I am sure that the answer will be available to the hon. Gentleman, either directly through me or through some other hon. Member. That illustrates one of the great difficulties that the ordinary lay Member has in dealing with highly technical matters.

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman, but I am confused. I

have before me the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it clear that the period of 28 weeks there referred to is only to be treated as prima facie evidence of survival. Would the 24 weeks be prima facie evidence or conclusive evidence? The hon. Gentleman should answer that question.

Mr. Hamilton: I wish I could. I am being honest. As a layman, I simply cannot answer. The Minister or others who are better qualified than I may well reply.
The question of viability was raised and debated at great length in Committee. The proposer of the Bill wrote to the Minister and received a reply on 1 February:
Dear Mr. Corrie,
Dr. Vaughan has asked me to write to you in his absence.
During the Committee hearing on 4 December you undertook to give further consideration to two amendments put down by Mr. Ian Mikardo and his colleagues which sought to define the expression 'capable of being born alive'. That term is as you know used in the ILPA 1929 and in the proposed Section 1A(1)b (referred to in Clause 2(1) of the Bill), and any definition would bite upon late abortions performed under new Section 1B (Clause 2(3) of the Bill) on the grounds of foetal abnormality. Officials of this Department, in conjunction with Parliamentary Counsel, and the Home and Scottish Offices, have been considering this matter—which has presented many complexities and difficulties—but have been unable to find a satisfactory formulation.
It was understood the definition of viability that was required was one that could be applied prospectively by medical practitioners on the basis of the presence or absence of specific criteria and which could be verified retrospectively. In order to give effect to such a definition the criteria used must be identifiable by objective clinical or pathological tests both before and after the termination procedure. There is unfortunately a major stumbling block to such a definition as, apart from the loose correlation with gestational age, there is at present no criteria or test that satisfy this aim The fact that a foetus had a separate existence can only be established in retrospect, either by its survival, or by autopsy.
The medical investigations that are available while the foetus is in utero are essentially predicters of gestational age, rather than viability. During the period of gestation that we are considering, that is between 22 and 28 weeks, these tests, of which ultrasound is the most reliable, cannot distinguish prospectively between the viable and non-viable foetus because development and maturation varies from one foetus to another. At best, estimates of gestational age will indicate that a foetus is likely to be viable or otherwise and this is


reflected in the rebuttable presumption contained in the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. The correlation between gestation and viability is not thought to be a sufficiently sound basis for a legal definition at this stage of pregnancy. Moreover, there is an inevitable margin of error associated with estimating gestational age by ultrasound; this was, you will recall, discussed by the Standing Committee.
Another serious difficulty is the complex interplay between the separate branches of law concerned with abortion, child destruction, murder and manslaughter. Indeed, I am advised that a medically precise definition, if it could be achieved, would be likely to have unpredictable legal effects, because of the complexities of the law, possibly even contrary to both your intention in agreeing to consider the matter, and the intention of the authors of the original amendments.
This leads me to another point of concern as I am advised that the inclusion of the definition of 'capable of being born alive' in abortion legislation would inevitably be regarded as affecting the interpretation of the same phrase used in the 1929 Act which, as you know, applies solely to England and Wales and to wilful acts as performed before a child has an existence independent of its mother. This could be a source of difficulty in Scotland.
I speak here as a Scottish Member. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 did not apply to Scotland and in that respect even the 1967 Act was regressive in Scotland. In Scotland, prior to 1967, a woman could get an abortion on request. There was no time limit and there is still no time limit in Scotland. There has been no problem there. I shall continue with the latter part of the quotation, and I apologise for the length of it:
Officials have carefully considered a wide range of definitions but in the light of all these factors have concluded that it is not possible to devise a form of words that would be helpful to the medical profession. The advice I have received, therefore, is that the existing legal and ethical constraints, which are familiar to the medical profession and are reflected in existing practice both in Scotland and England, should not be altered. These require the doctor to make a clinical judgment in each individual case based on all the evidence available to him.
That point was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North—the importance of leaving the clinical judgment as far as possible in the hands of the doctors without recourse to rigid legislative shackles. This point has been made repeatedly by the Minister in the course of the proceedings on the Bill. The letter concludes:
Naturally Dr. Vaughan would have no objection if you wished to show this letter to Mr. Mikardo"—

and my hon. Friend has given me permission to use this letter—
or other members of the Committee. I am sorry we are unable to be more helpful but you can see the difficulties.
In fact, the Minister will argue against the definition in this new clause, and the doctors will still run the risk of prosecution in that matter. However, it is a genuine attempt to get a new definition of viability because of the number of cases that are produced at strategic points in the course of discussions on these highly controversial matters in the House. One hears of cases in which people have said "We have heard the foetus making a noise, and therefore it is presumed that it is capable of independent life." But all such cases have shown that that is not true.
I turn to the question of the upper time limit. I shall look at the provisions of the Bill as it stands. I apologise for the identification of the clauses, but this is a very complex matter for the Press Gallery, and still more complex for the Strangers' Gallery. Clause 1(1)(a) refers to "20 weeks". The present intention of the Bill's sponsor reduces the 28 weeks, provided in the 1929 Act, to 20 weeks for England. Wales and Scotland. This would be the first time that a time limit of any kind has been imposed in Scotland. As I said, the 1929 Act does not apply to Scotland.
If one then turns to the time limits referred toin Clause 2(1)1A(1)(a), one sees that there is no time limit in certain circumstances. Then one looks at clause 2(1)1A(1)(b), which states that when an abortion takes place under clause 2(1)1A(1)(a) the doctor must use the method of termination least likely to harm the child, and I quote:
which is or may be capable of being born alive
unless this method involves
substantially greater risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Clause 2(1)1A(2) states that the signature of only one doctor is necessary if the abortion is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Clause 2(1)1B(1)(a) states that abortion is permissible if two doctors are of the opinion that there is a substantial risk that the child, if it were born, would be "seriously handicapped".


Clause 2(2)1B(1)(b) sets an upper time limit of 28 weeks in Scotland for abortions performed on the grounds already mentioned—that is, the handicap question.
On Second Reading, the Minister explained the difficulties involved in lowering the 28-week limit. A case can be argued, and I think that it will be argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), for leaving the limit at 28 weeks. There is a legitimate case for that.
I said on Second Reading that if the Bill had contained only one provision, reducing the time limit to 24 weeks, there would have been virtually unanimous support. I think that the hon. Member for Bute and North. Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) had that intention originally, but he was pushed in a direction that he did not want to go in. Now he is landed, and I think that no one regrets it more than he does.
However, we are dealing with the Bill as it is. In speaking about the time limits, the Minister emphasised how difficult it would be to legislate for all the cases that should be exempted should a lower time limit be introduced. He went through them in great detail then and subsequently in Committee.
There are already strict controls of abortions that take place after 20 weeks. But I think, and I believe that my hon. Friends and the majority of hon. Members would accept, that the case for 24 weeks is overwhelming. The Lane committee suggested it, as did the British Medical Association and virtually every professional and nursing organisation outside.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I do not wish to interfere unduly with the hon. Gentleman's speech, but we are debating solely the question of
capable of sustaining independent life".
We shall be discussing the time limit later. We do not want to allow the two sorts of amendments to be mixed with each other. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who opened the debate, kept to that matter.

Mr. Hamilton: The new clause specifies
a period of 24 weeks or more",
as distinct from the 28 weeks in the 1929 Act, which we are seeking to amend. My

right hon. Friend spent a great deal of time on the time limits.

Mr. Michael Latham: I suspect that the House has considerable sympathy with the arguments about 24 weeks, but we are faced with a new clause in two parts. The hon. Gentleman said that subsection (a) was unlikely to command the Government's support, for the reasons that he read out. Has he any serious external support for the words that he has suggested? Have they been drafted on a legal basis?

Mr. Hamilton: One of the remarkable aspects of our consideration of the Bill—I speak only for those of us who oppose it—is that we have had absolutely superb legal and medical assistance from outside. I am not disclosing any secrets when I say that I think that the Department was very grateful that we had it. Again, I am disclosing no secret when I say that the Departments are very much opposed to the Bill—both the Scottish Home and Health Department and the DHSS. They not infrequently came to our advisers for help in these matters. The new clause and the amendments have been drawn up with great care with the help of medical and legal advisers outside.

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend recognises, as I do, that in these matters the doctor's clinical judgment is essential. My hon. Friend will presumably also recognise the sharp difference between being capable of being born in the sense of "one scream and dead" and being born and being able to sustain life. If the clause is carried, that terminology would have to be judged on the basis of the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. That is why I said that it was extremely important for us to have the minimum of legislation on these matters, lest we confine or restrict the clinical judgment of the doctor. The women's organisations, which know much more about these matters than we do, believe that ultimately all these questions should be resolved by the woman herself, in close consultation with her own doctor and nobody else—the law aside. Let the woman and her doctor, in close consultation, decide on


the best solution to the problem, as she sees it.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerald Vaughan): As the hon. Gentleman has raised what I regard as a rather serious point about the advice given by the Department, I hope that he will agree that the Department gave completely independent advice whenever it was required. I recall that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were very appreciative of the advice that we gave. As I understand it, it is not correct to say that the Department was unable to give advice of its own and had to seek outside advice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman implied.

Mr. Hamilton: I may have been misunderstood. I want to pay great tribute to the Minister and to the Department for the objective help that they gave the Committee. One of the reasons why it is such a bad Bill is that much of that advice was not accepted by the sponsor. I know that the Minister is greatly disquieted by the Bill as it stands. I know that, for example, he is very much in favour of a limit of 24 weeks. I hope that he will say that.
In reference to that matter, I want to come directly to what the hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading and in Committee. He talked about the massive support in the medical profession for 24 weeks, and said:
the earliest authenticated case of survival—I choose my words very carefully—is at 24 weeks.
He added—and I ask hon. Members to note this very well in view of the amendment of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg):
I believe that 22 weeks would be the worst of all worlds…it would create great problems for the medical profession…the medical advice was unanimously in favour of 24 weeks.
The Minister was referring to the invitations that he had sent out during the recess asking for all the advice and opinions of the medical professional organisations. He concluded:
it is my hope that the Committee will go for 24 weeks.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that statement was made by my hon. Friend before he re-

ceived Professor Reynolds's letter? He later read it to the Standing Committee. That letter recommended 22 weeks, and he gave great weight to it.

Mr. Hamilton: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would be patient and make his own speech in his own way. He is trying to make mine. I was coming to that very point, and I shall answer it fully.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Hamilton: No. There is plenty of time.
In the course of the same speech, the Minister said:
During the recess we had extensive consultations with the medical profession, particularly on this point. The advice we received was that 24 weeks would achieve all the aspirations of people who feel that 28 weeks is unsatisfactory.…The profession feels strongly that, in the case of women seeking late abortions, it should retain the right between 20 and 24 weeks, to exercise its judgment…the circumstances can be extremely difficult, very personal and need most careful individual consideration."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 7 November 1979; c. 173–51.
Despite the Minister's assertion that 22 weeks was the worst of all worlds, two weeks later he read the letter from Professor Reynolds, to which the hon. Member for Grantham referred.
Professor Reynolds is professor of neonatal paediatrics at University College hospital medical school. He stated that it was inevitable that one will survive sooner or later at 23 weeks. That letter was hotly disputed by Dr. Pembrey, the senior lecturer at the Institute of Child Care, who wrote to the Minister on 23 November, a fortnight later. Dr. Pembrey's letter did not receive anything like the publicity that Professor Reynolds's letter received. Dr. Pembrey said:
Any reduction of the legal limit below 24 weeks would be disastrous for the families wishing to take what I regard as the responsible action of pre-natal diagnosis and selective termination. I urge the Committee to stick at 24 weeks.
The Minister went some way towards asking us to base the law on one case where the foetus had survived at 24 weeks and on the basis of one letter. The BMA was extremely puzzled by the Minister's about-turn. Having said that 22 weeks was the worst of all worlds, the Minister


accepted, on the basis of one letter, that that was nonsense.
In the Medical News of 29 November 1979, the BMA stated:
Many eminent paediatricians have given us advice on the legislation, which we passed on to the Minister many weeks ago.
That was before the Minister received Professor Reynolds's letter. The BMA continued:
It is difficult to understand why they"—
the Standing Committee—
have ignored our evidence and preferred to take heed of a lone voice in paediatric medicine.
The Minister must ask himself why he put Professor Reynolds's letter on the record.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Professor Macnaughton's letter to me states:
It is important to be able to perform abortions up to 24 weeks. Women seeking abortion at this time comprise about 1 per cent. of our abortion patients. They are a very special group who are either very young—12 to 15 years—or very disorganised in their lives and therefore need special consideration. Continuation of these pregnancies could cause grave consequences to the patient and serious risks, including suicide. I might add here that babies at this stage are non-viable. There are reports of survivors but those born naturally at this stage are very likely to be severely handicapped even if taken care of in very sophisticated units such as those at University College Hospital, London.

Mr. Hamilton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). He is a medical practitioner with great knowledge of these matters. He is in constant contact with Professor Macnaughton, who takes a completely contrary view to Professor Reynolds, as do many others. It was unfortunate that the Minister used that letter and, on the basis of that, went back on his word about 22 weeks.
I hope that the Minister will come down in favour of 24 weeks. That is a reasonable compromise that will be acceptable in all parts of the House.

Dr. Vaughan: The letter came at a time when the Committee was discussing the possibility of an infant surviving at 23 weeks. We had a great deal of discussion about that. I got in touch with the foremost unit in the country to find out what the view of those working there was. In response, Professor Reynolds

wrote to me. He confirmed clearly in his letter that there was no case in this country of a child surviving at less than 24 weeks.
I thought that it was right to give the Committee the whole letter. It would have been wrong to pick out that one tiny point. Professor Reynolds went on to point out that medical advances are being made and that quite soon, in his view, it might be possible for an infant to survive at less than 24 weeks. He went on to express his personal view that it might be wise to agree to a 22-week limit. He was not aware that the Committee was considering another way of dealing with the matter—that a24-week limit should be established with an escape provision so that if medical advances were made Ministers could reduce the limit. Professor Reynolds was not aware of that, so he gave his own solution to the problem.

Mr. Hamilton: The Minister is right factually, but he does not answer my argument. Before the Minister received that letter from Professor Reynolds, he had received the letters referred to by the BMA which took a contrary view. The Minister did not give the same publicity to those letters as he gave to Professor Reynolds's letter. The Department must weigh the evidence of the medical profession. The mass of medical evidence is contrary to that of Professor Reynolds. The House must take its decision on the basis of all the evidence presented to it.
It is sometimes suggested that the World Health Organisation supports a 22-week time limit. That is not so. The World Health Organisation is not on record on this subject although it has drawn attention to the increase in the complications to which late abortions give rise. That is about all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has performed a service by introducing his new clause. He has explained the reasons for it. I do not believe that it is perfect. I should not be unhappy if it were rejected on the Minister's advice. We are searching for an acceptable definition of viability. I am not certain that we have found it, but we have tried. I hope that the Minister


will give the official departmental view early in the proceedings.

11 am

Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever else the Bill does, it compels us to reflect carefully on the moral and practical aspects of the difficult and complex question of abortion, to weigh with compassion the plight of the pregnant woman, who seeks an abortion, against the right of an innocent child to be born, and to decide the circumstances in which abortion is justified and those when it is not, and whether what we decide upholds the dignity of human life or undermines it.
In considering the questions of viability, of survival and of an upper time limit for abortion, we come face to face with this moral aspect. There is no escape for any of us. For abortion is not like any other medical procedure. It is not to be compared with the removal of an appendix. It is unique in the sense that it involves two lives, one of which, of necessity, must be destroyed. It is literally a matter of life and death.
Birth is a supremely important event in the life of every human being. But it is not the beginning of life. We know that the child in the womb becomes a recognisable human being long before its emergence into the world. After 20 weeks' gestation, its development is rapid, and very soon after that it is capable of not merely being born alive but of survival. We know that under the present law—this brings me to the new clause and the amendment we are discussing—after 28 weeks of pregnancy, to abort a child is child destruction, to use the legal term. But at 27 weeks it is not. That cannot be right. It is neither logical nor humane. The Bill says, rightly, that the upper time limit should be reduced to 20 weeks.
There is certainly an overwhelming weight of opinion in favour of some reduction. The Lane committee, reporting in 1974, observed that informed opinion at that time considered that, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely born babies, an upper time limit of 28 weeks was too high, and concluded that it should be reduced to 24 weeks. The Lane committee conceded, however, that not all informed opinion agreed with that view. For

example, the Peel report on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research defined a viable foetus as
one which has reached the stage of maintaining the co-ordinated operations of its component parts so that it is capable of functioning as a self-sustaining whole independently of any connection with its mother".
That is a somewhat technical and dry, but essentially accurate, description of a baby struggling to be born. The report recommended that
the minimal limit of viability for human foetuses should be regarded as 20 weeks' gestational age.
The BMA, in its evidence at that time, agreed. The House should understand that one reason for the Lane committee fixing on 24 weeks rather than 20 was the problem of detecting, at that time, whether a child might be born with a serious physical or mental handicap. Tests could not begin until between the sixteenth and eighteenth weeks of pregnancy and in certain circumstances might not be completed until the twenty-fourth week. One can understand and sympathise with the Lane committee's reservations. Since then, however, methods of diagnosis have improved. What is more, the difficulty is overcome in the present Bill by allowing late abortion in such cases without regard to the 20 weeks' limit.
The Select Committee, reporting more than two years after Lane—

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: As diagnosis is a specifically important point, will my hon. Friend define it more closely? He has not yet convinced me of the accuracy of the point he is making. Has he any more material to substantiate his view on this all-important question of diagnosis?

Sir B. Braine: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend an answer. He has asked an important question. I am glad to reassure him. In England and Wales, the Bill makes no alteration whatever to the existing law as set out in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 1 (1) (a), if I recall it correctly, provides for terminations where two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that there is a substantial risk that if the child was born it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Section 1 (1) (a) of the Act is removed by the Bill but is then restored verbatim


as clause 1 (1) (b). I take it that my hon. Friend does not wish me to explain the situation in Scotland. I can assure the House that the Bill makes no change to the existing law.
The Select Committee came down firmly in favour of 20 weeks. This view was supported by Sir John Peel and again by the British Medical Association. The then president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told the Committee that
to terminate pregnancies at 20 and 24 weeks is on the whole a hazardous business.
The president supported a reduction to 20 weeks subject to exemptions in the case of a grossly abnormal foetus or grave and serious maternal illness that might call for termination after the twentieth week. I have shown, thanks to my hon. Friend, that this is precisely what the Bill permits.
It is significant that the Department of Health and Social Security, in its evidence to the Select Committee, thought that, because of the hazards involved, all abortions at 20 weeks or above should be prohibited in the private sector, leaving late abortions to be performed solely in National Health Service hospitals, with exceptions where there was suitable resuscitation equipment and trained staff to operate it. The Select Committee observed that, by that action, the Department
have given some sigfinificance to the 20 weeks' gestation
and came down unequivocally in favour of a 20-week limit.

Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the Select Committee. Will he explain to the House—there are a large number of new hon. Members on both sides who were not in the House at that time—what was the composition of the Select Committee that produced the report to which he refers? Will he also deal with the point that, whether or not Sir John Peel came out in favour of 20 weeks, every reputable medical body since then and now, during the passage of the Bill, has come out in favour of 24 weeks? None, but none—not one single one—has supported 20 weeks.

Sir B. Braine: I intend to deal with the latter point. The hon. Lady is anticipating me. I shall not give way again if that is the kind of interruption she intends

to make. I shall deal with the first point she raised. The Select Committee was composed of hon. Members of all parties. It was presided over by a respected and senior Privy Councillor who is a member of the Labour Party. On every occasion when its recommendations have been discussed in one form or another in this House, a substantial majority has agreed. That is the answer.

Mrs. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir B. Braine: Since then, the House has approved the principle of 20 weeks on several occasions.

Mrs. Short: I must appeal to the hon. Gentleman in the interests of clarity and truth. He has not answered the first point 1 made, He knows perfectly well that it was not an all-party Committee that produced the report. All the members from the Labour side, including several women members who sat on the Committee—[Interruption.]

Sir B. Braine: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given way to the hon. Lady.

Sir B. Braine: I should like to help the hon. Lady.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may wish to help, but he has given way. The hon. Lady is entitled to finish what she was saying.

Mrs. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that hon. Members from the Labour side of the House who supported the 1967 Act withdrew from that Committee and the Committee was left with a rump of hon. Members—I agree there were some Members from the Labour side—who were all opposed to the 1967 Act. Therefore, its report does not bear consideration.

Sir B. Braine: The hon. Lady is now changing her tune—

Mrs. Short: No.

Sir B. Braine: Earlier, she said that there were no members of her party on the Committee. In fact, the two hon. Members sitting immediately behind her were members of that Select Committee.

Mrs. Short: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said.

Sir B. Braine: This is relevant in an important sense because the recommendations of the Select Committee on this point—

Mrs. Short: They were all opposed to the Act.

Sir B. Braine: —were debated when we had the Benyon Bill before us, when my own Bill was presented and when this present Bill was given a Second Reading. On each occasion, the House voted by a substantial majority in favour.

Mr. Ennals: There are some new Members who may have misunderstood the exchange which the hon. Gentleman has just had with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). The Lane report has already been quoted, and the hon. Gentleman is at the moment quoting from the report of the Select Committee which was set up to deal with the recommendations of the James White Bill. He knows, and the House should know, that, for reasons which may be good or bad, five Members who were appointed to the Select Committee did not attend. Therefore, all the recommendations that the Committee came up with were not from one side of the House or the other—this is not a party issue; instead, those who were in favour of greater restriction of abortion made the report.

Sir B. Braine: I must repeat that, whatever the composition of the Select Committee—we can always criticise the composition of Select Committees—its its conclusions were agreed in principle by a majority of hon. Members on the Floor of the House on at least three occasions. I think that we can now safely leave the matter there.
As regards doctors, a poll of gynaecologists in 1977 reported that no fewer than 87 per cent. of those questioned were in favour of a limit of 20 weeks or less. There is, therefore, no moral or medical reason why hon. Members should now change their views, which they have expressed on this subject at least three or four times.
There is, however, an additional reason in support of my argument. Hon. Mem-

bers have referred to uncertainty. They have unwittingly made the case for the Bill. When considering late abortions, we certainly face some uncertainty. According to official figures published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—I hope that this will not be challenged—there were 133,004 abortions in 1977. Doctors who carry out abortions are required by law to state the gestational age. Yet in no fewer than 4,651 cases no gestational age was given.
We can draw two conclusions from this. One is that the doctors in such cases may have deliberately omitted to provide the information and the DHSS turned a blind eye. The other, which is much more likely and reasonable, is that the doctors simply did not know. Whatever the reason, therefore, there is a margin of error here which, in the case of babies aborted after 20 weeks, may mean that if we legislate for 24 weeks a child with a good chance of survival will be deprived of life.
We are talking here of viability and survival. Of course it is true, I concede, that there is no proven case yet of a baby surviving after an abortion at less than 24 weeks. There have been reports, however, of babies in North America and this country being born and living from 19 weeks, but it has always been said that there have been errors in calculating the gestational age.

Mrs. Renée Short: It is impossible.

Sir B. Braine: But it can no longer be claimed that a baby cannot survive before 24 weeks, since a distinguished gynaecologist, Mr. Ronald Norris, delivered a live baby at Chertsey hospital recently at 23 weeks.

Mrs. Short: He did not.

Sir B. Braine: He did. It was a wanted baby. The gestational age in that case was carefully checked and rechecked by the new technique of ultrasound scanning.
It is also true that at 20 weeks we are talking of less than 1 per cent. of total abortions, but it must be remembered—I come back to the moral question—that that is over 1,000 babies a year. If we omit the exempt cases that would be permitted under the Bill, that still means a


substantial number, running into hundreds, of children who might otherwise have survived.
Reference has been made to the views of Professor Reynolds. I heard his letter read in Standing Committee. Professor Reynolds is one of the leading neonatologists—specialists in the care of premature infants—in the world. In his letter, which my right hon Friend read to the Standing Committee on 21 November, he said:
We occasionally admit babies born at 23 weeks gestation, and while none has yet survived, it is inevitable that one will, sooner or later. Infants born at 23weeks are, incidentally, sometimes very much alive at birth—whatever you may hear to the contrary!
He came down in favour of 22 weeks on medical grounds, but we here are concerned not merely with medical fact but with the law and the safeguards that it must provide for the unborn. Some allowance must be made for the very uncertainties I have described and the possible miscalculation of dates.
If we were to legislate for 22 weeks, we should be in danger of permitting abortion of babies of 24 or 25 weeks' gestation. It is precisely for this reason—I have consulted the records on this—that the BMA originally attacked the Lane committee's advocacy of 24 weeks.
On the impossibility of being absolutely certain about gestational age, Dr. Michael Moore, reader in obstetrics and gynaecology at Manchester university, referred to Professor Reynolds's letter and wrote to me, saying that
The experience of informed parents confirms this. The latest aid for the estimation of gestational age involves measurement of the fetus, usually the fetal head, by ultrasonography. If, instead of 20 weeks, it was decided to adopt 22 weeks as the upper limit for abortion, the danger of aborting viable babies would remain.

Mr. Ennals: rose—

Mr. Dan Jones: Let the man finish.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman has given way to me, and I appreciate it.
It was said earlier that one of the problems for those of us who are not doctors, which is the vast majority of us here, is that we are dependent upon evidence which comes to us from those who know far more about these matters

than we do. The hon. Gentleman is relying on evidence from individual consultants. I read a letter which expressed the view that 24 weeks was the figure. It had the endorsement not only of Sir George Godber, to whom I referred, but of Sir Richard Doll, professor of medicine at Oxford university, Dame Josephine Barnes, president of the British Medical Association and the presidents of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathology and the medical and surgical Scottish Royal colleges. We cannot, just because one consultant sends us his views, disregard the views of those who represent the profession.

Sir B. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into a trap of his own making. A letter in The Times only this week from Sir John Peel, former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Professor Ian Donald and Professor Scott, as well as the very distinguished past secretary of the BMA, Derek Stevenson, came down in favour of 20 weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have both been Ministers in the DHSS. We cannot duck our own responsibility. This is a moral question which, at the end of the day, Members of Parliament have to decide on behalf of our constituents.
When talking about the attitudes of doctors, let us consider the 1980 BMA ethical handbook. Page 29 says:
The doctor should recommend or perform termination after 20 weeks only if he is convinced that the health of the woman is seriously threatened or if there is good reason to believe that the child will be seriously handicapped.
The House will note that it does not say 24 or 22 weeks. It says 20 weeks. We shall also hear a great deal in this debate about the word "serious" from the opponents of the Bill. They will ask how that word should be defined. When it comes to medical ethics which have to be written down for doctors to read and observe, doctors know perfectly well what the word "serious" means.
The Bill is in line with the ethical guidance given by the BMA. Hon. Members may find it extraordinarily odd that doctors can be reminded that it is unethical to abort after 20 weeks, save in the exceptions laid down in the Bill, but that


Parliament must not legislate. With great respect to the BMA, I say that the law of our land should reflect the highest standards of a great profession and not, as the unamended 1967 Act is permitting, the lowest standards.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) has challenged me. He should know what the figures are because they are shown in the returns of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I wonder whether hon. Membersrealise the extent to which the existing law is being flouted. If we take the OPCS figures for 1977 we find that, of 1,095 abortions carried out after 20 weeks, over half were carried out in the private sector, for money, and the remainder were carried out in National Health Service hospitals. Yet 75 per cent. of such abortions were not carried out for the serious reasons stipulated in the BMA ethical handbook.
My interest in these figures goes back over many years. Many doctors have approached me on this subject during the last 15 years, as I am sure they have approached the right hon. Gentleman. It is not true to say that the whole of the medical profession is lined up in opposition to the Bill. No secret poll of doctors has been conducted on this subject by the BMA.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. The statement that I read out included the names of the presidents of the Royal colleges. Those Royal colleges speak on behalf of their members. I do not say that there are not individual consultants who will take a different view. The presidents of the Royal colleges have given their evidence before this House. The hon. Gentleman said that I had fallen into a trap of my own making. He has fallen into one of his own making.
If he says that, even under the present law, there are more illegal abortions than there should be, surely he would agree that if the law is made more vigorous more abortions will be carried out, not only illegally but at great danger to the lives of the mother and the possible child.

Sir B. Braine: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the only time that presidents of the Royal colleges and

representatives of the medical profession have given evidence to this House was before a Select Committee. I have shown, and it is on the record, that when they did so they were in favour of 20 weeks. I cannot be responsible for the way the medical profession conducts itself. All I can say is, and I guarantee that there are many hon. Members of this House who have had the same experience, that there are scores, if not hundreds, of doctors who have written to me expressing disgust with the views of their so-called leaders in this matter.
Of course, one must take into account the views of a still noble profession.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: rose—

Sir B. Braine: I do not need to take instructions from the hon. Lady on this. I will give way when I have finished. Parliament must make up its mind and not be guided by letters and the like. What really matters is the evidence that these people are prepared to give to a Select Committee. When they did so, they came down firmly against all the propositions from opponents of the Bill.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I should like my hon. Friend the Member for for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to clarify a point. I think that I heard him say something that was unworthy of him. I thought I heard him say that the medical profession and medical opinion that supported the 1967 Abortion Act was of the lowest medical, ethical and moral standard whereas he wished to take the highest moral and ethical view. I am sure that he would not wish to give the House the impression that he believed that scientifically, morally and ethically held views opposing his own are of the lowest medical standards.

Sir B. Braine: I did not say that. I said that the law of the land should reflect the highest standards and not, as is often the case, the lowest standards. What I charge, and I will give proof to the House—though I do not wish to go wide of the amendment—is that the law is being flouted. I have documentary proof—

Dr. McDonald: Give the evidence.

Sir B. Braine: I know that the hon. Lady does not wish to listen. She did


not listen in Standing Committee. However, on a matter that touches the conscience of hon. Members, most hon. Members wish to hear the argument.
I do not doubt that every day of the week abortion on demand is taking place either in private clinics or, in some cases, in National Health Service hospitals. I can prove it. What is more, I said as much in Committee in the presence of the Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what is going on in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has given way frequently. We may not agree with what he says, but we must listen. I must listen with everybody else, but I cannot hear him because of the noise.

Sir B. Braine: I do not wish to prolong the argument. I know that the law is being flouted every day and that there are doctors—

Mrs. Renée Short: Where?

Sir B. Braine: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) presses me and if it is the wish of the House that I go into detail, I will.

Dr. McDonald: Yes, it is.

Sir B. Braine: I have in my hand the green form, certificate A, required to be completed by two doctors who, acting in good faith, are of the opinion that a termination should be granted. Because of my connection over many years with this distressing subject, many doctors have written to me. They are distressed at what they know is going on. In this particular case the doctor referred his patient to a wall-known hospital saying that in his opinion there were no grounds for a termination but that the matter ought to be considered. The termination was carried out. The certificate in question is signed by only one doctor.

Dr. McDonald: Which hospital?

Sir. B. Braine: The requirement under the law that one of the four criteria which must be observed should be signified was not complied with. The discharge certificate that was sent to the patient's general practitioner gives the diagnosis as "unwanted cyesis", which means an unwanted pregnancy. That was an illegal

abortion. The law was not complied with. It was not complied with by the doctor who carried out the abortion. This kind of thing is illegal and disgraceful and is taking place every day of the week.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to which hon. Member he is giving way?

Sir B. Braine: I give way to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that courtesy. Would he be kind enough to tell the House how confidential records of any case of that kind—which presumably are the responsibility of the doctor and not of anyone outside the doctor-patient relationship—came into his possession?

Sir. B. Braine: I cannot describe the distress of a doctor who knows that this sort of thing is going on. [Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady in my own way. The document is indeed confidential, and that is the reason why it is extremely difficult to pinpoint what is taking place, although many doctors in the land know that it is taking place.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Sir B. Braine: The answer to the hon. Lady is that if the Minister is interested in this matter—because that sort of thing is illegal—I shall certainly convey to him the documents in my possession.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he was giving way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Is that not correct?

Sir B. Braine: No, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison).

Mr. Charles Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is claiming that the present law is being flouted and that certain doctors are performing illegal actions. Even if that is so, why on earth does it follow that changing the law will stop its being flouted?

Sir B. Braine: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend. I am giving a clear illustration of a case where the law is being flouted. At least, we should be certain that if an abortion is granted on the grounds laid down in the present Act—it may be amended by the Bill, but the Bill is not yet law—the law is being observed. I am saying that the law is not being observed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Sir B. Braille: Therefore, coming back to the question of viability and survival, the case for rejecting the amendment—

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Sir B. Braine: I can deal with only one interruption at a time. I am perfectly willing to go on doing so at considerable length, but I do not wish to weary the House. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the point that has been put to me. [Interruption.] This is a matter with which I have been familiar for many years. Doctors confide in me on this, and it is for that reason—

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is quite clear—I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying this—that there has been the grossest breach of medical ethics in making available to him the case notes of a patient. If the medical practitioner who made those notes available to the hon. Gentleman had been seriously concerned about the gross illegality to which the hon. Gentleman referred, why were the papers not sent to the police so that there might be a prosecution?

Sir B. Braine: The patient in this case suffered later from a serious breakdown. The general practitioner's duty is primarily to the patient. The doctor's advice had not been that there should be a termination. A termination was carried out. The law was broken in the way that I have described. It is impossible to establish these things save in the High Court of Parliament, where there is a degree of privilege. We are talking here about a matter of life and death. Legal niceties of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned do not impress me, and I do not think that they will impress the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given way. That being so, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, (Mr. Hughes) must resume his seat. The hon. Gentleman has given way a good deal and he has been on his feet now for a long time.

Sir B. Braine: I would have finished long ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had it not been for the interruptions, but I am anxious to meet genuine anxieties where these are expressed.
I have very much in my mind the evidence given to the Select Committee. We were told that some women who had abortions deliberately chose to become pregnant again within 12 months. When we talk about the rights of the women concerned, this is where the law must be very careful to ensure adequate safeguards.
A Bristol university paper, published in the British Medical Journalof 29 May 1976, revealed that 43 per cent. of women who had had an abortion in that hospital area were pregnant again within a year. In other words, we are dealing with a situation which certainly no man can understand. I suspect that no woman who has not faced an abortion, or has not borne children, would understand it either. Of course, there are unhappy circumstances in which a child in the womb is unwanted. Paradoxically, the doctors tell me that there are also cases in which a child, wanted passionately during pregnancy, is rejected after birth, but nobody suggests that such a child, once born, should be destroyed.
Who among us can explain these mysterious attitudes? What we can be sure about is that there need never be an unwanted baby, for we live in a society in which tens of thousands of families are crying out to adopt a baby.

Mr. Ernie Roberts(Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): rose—

Sir B. Brain: Let me sum up by saying that a law which is broken every day of the year cannot be a good law. A law which does not automatically provide a woman, faced with this agonising dilemma, with objective counselling—independent of those who have a vested financial interest in the number of abortions—is a law which trivialises life itself. A law which results in a denial of life to


150,000 potential human beings, and which results in the deliberate killing of babies in the womb after 20 weeks for purely social reasons, as the statistics show, is one about which we should all he deeply ashamed.
That is the case against the amendment. That is the case against the arguments that we have heard previously from the opponents of the Bill in this House, fighting, as they are, a retreating battle against the arguments of reason and morality for the denial of safeguards for the unborn. It goes right to the heart of the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) appeared to me to be producing some evidence to the House that the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Abortion Act 1967 may, in the particular case that he produced to the House, have been broken. If so, that seems to me to be a good case for enforcement of the law, but it does not seem to me to add up to an argument for changing a law which is not being enforced at the present time.
I want briefly to turn to the new clause—[Interruption.] I hope that this is not a revolutiontary departure. The new clause is about the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and not about abortion law as such.
I should like briefly to explain to the House, as I have on a previous occasion, that the 1967 legislation on abortion did not make any change in the law touching on the question of viability. We simply included in one section of the 1967 Act a reference back to the law on viability established in England and Wales in 1929. It is important that the House should understand what that law is, because it is widely misunderstood and misrepresented—not wilfully but mistakenly.
The 1929 law, in layman's terms, as I understand it, says that it is an offence to interfere with the life of a viable child. In order to create some kind of protection for the viable child, a presumption was written in, in 1929, that where the pregnancy had reached the twenty-eighth week there was a presumption to the benefit of the potential child that it would be viable.
It is important that the House should note that there was no reverse presumption—that if the pregnancy had not reached 28 weeks, the child was not viable. I think that this is the point that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was trying to clarify earlier this morning. As I understand it, what the new clause seeks to do is to create for the first time precisely such a reverse presumption and to say that so long as a pregnancy has not reached 24 weeks there must be a general presumption that the foetus is non-viable.
I am waiting to hear what the Attorney-General or the Minister will have to say on this matter, but I have grave doubts as to whether we are right to proceed in this direction at all. What I want the House to understand is that it is a completely different matter from the law as at present in force, established in 1929 and presumed and continued in the abortion law of 1967.
Precisely because there is no reverse assumption, it is the case that if an abortion were carried out on a foetus in the twenties ofpregnancy—let us not define it more closely than that—and there were any suspicion that that foetus was viable, an offence would be committed. It does not have to be 28 weeks, 24 weeks or 20 weeks; at any stage. I am glad to see the Minister nodding. I think that this is the right explanation of the present law and that the burden is, therefore, very heavily on the medical practitioner to watch that he is not breaking the law, because he has no protection in relation to termination of any pregnancy up to the twenty-eighth week. That is not what the present law says.
Therefore, a great deal of the discussion that has gone on outside and inside the House on putting in a time limit has been misunderstood right from the start, because there is no time limit at present in the law at all. The burden of responsibility rests with the medical profession.
I think that it was against that background and that proper understanding of the law that the Lane committee came to the view that Parliament ought to consider, in the light of modern medical techniques, whether it was enough to leave the 1929 presumption, standing at 28 weeks, as being the law governing abortion. The Lane committee recommended


to us that we should consider putting in a time limit of 24 weeks. As the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s) has read to us, that 24-week limit is also recommended by the bulk of the leaders of the medical profession—I think that that is the best shorthand to use.
I believe that the reason for that is a good one. It is, of course, that since 1929 medical techniques have developed, machinery has been evolved and research has taken place which enables the foetus below the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy to have a much greater chance of survival than it had when the statute was being framed in 1929.
But the medical profession then goes on to point out to us that if one tries to establish a hard and fast limit of 24 weeks there will still be some cases in which the life of the mother is at risk or in which gross foetal abnormality can be detected, where exemption has got to be provided beyond the twenty-fourth week. The promoter of the Bill seeks to do that in the Bill as it stands, but I believe that the House would be well advised to accept the general view of both the Lane committee and the leaders of the medical profession at present—that we should try to create the general presumption at 24 weeks, for this reason.
There have been a large number of newspaper stories—some of them malicious, I think, but the others perfectly well intentioned—of foetuses surviving below 28 weeks and in some cases below 24 weeks. As the Minister told the Standing Committee, as I read the report, all the cases reported to the Department have been investigated and not one has been found to stand up when under investigation. Nevertheless, I think that there is some public anxiety arising out of these cases. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) quoted a letter from the Department which referred to "margins of error." I think that the general public view, as well as the medical view, would be that on this issue of abortion we should give the benefit of any margin of error to the foetus and that it would not be right to run the risk, in the state of the law that we have, that the life of a viable foetus could be terminated.
For that reason, rather than any purist analysis of the law, which, as I have said,

fully covers the point at present because there is no time limit at present in law, I think that public opinion would expect us to lower what is thought to be a limit of 28 weeks and to create a fresh statute on this subject establishing a limit for routine abortions of 24 weeks.
11.45 am
If the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire(Mr. Corrie) had brought forward to the House a Bill saying that, full stop, I am not saying that he would have got unanimity, but I think that he would have had general consent. I deeply regret that he did not do that.
I deeply regret that the Bill before us is a mess. I think that matters will be very difficult. I am waiting to hear the Minister's guidance to see how we get out of this mess. If we cannot get out of the mess based on the Bill, I think that the Department itself should seriously consider bringing forward in the next Session, as a matter of general law reform, perhaps in a general Bill, a provision, which would achieve wide assent in the House, to lower the limit to 24 weeks. If the Department is not willing to do that, we must see whether we can, out of the Bill before us—either today or some Friday next year or whenever we actually reach the end of this Bill—seek to make that simple adjustment. If we did that and nothing else, I believe that we could improve the state of the law.

Dr. Vaughan: I am glad to be following the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in what he has just said. He has made many of the points that I was just about to make. He is absolutely correct in what he says, so at this stage I shall be very brief indeed.
I should like, however, to refer to what the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has said—that I am likely to favour 24 weeks, because he is absolutely correct about that. But that, of course, is partly a personal view. I am advised that the new clause is not the best way of achieving a new upper time limit, because, for example, at 28 weeks there can be no absolute evidence that a foetus is viable. There can be only prima facie evidence, about which we have heard comments already.
In some cases a foetus of more than 28 weeks is not viable. The argument applies even more forcefully when one


looks at lower numbers of weeks—for example, 24 weeks. At that stage of gestation, only a tiny minority of foetuses will be capable of separate existence and thus be viable. So there can be no reasonable presumption of viability even at 24 weeks. For this reason, the new clause is really not an appropriate way, and I advise the House accordingly.
Another serious objection is that the law would have a different effect in Scotland if abortion law relied on a reduced rebuttal presumption in the 1929 Act. For those who want to change the period to 24 weeks, I would advise that they support amendment No. 2, which would achieve what they desire, and that we reject the new clause.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: With regard to the letter to The Times signed by Sir John Peel and other distinguished medical persons published this week, to which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) referred and which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has sought to rebut, is there any evidence from the Government of the views of the World Health Organisation? It is widely believed that after a very substantial study it has come to a very definite conclusion on the figure of 22.

Dr. Vaughan: That was in a slightly different context. I expect that the House will want to come back to it when we discuss the amendments later.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly from the Front Bench, but I make it clear that the views I shall put forward are my own. I have strong views on this subject, as do some of my hon. Friends and some Government Members. Though the House is aware that strong views have been expressed on this issue—not least in the Labour Party and the trade union movement—there is no mandatory pressure on my hon. Friends to follow those views.
I am a supporter of the 1967 Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I supported that measure at the time, and I still support the basic principles in it. I am much in favour of supporting amendment No. 2.
Having looked at new clause 1and the other amendments, I say to the supporters

of the new clause and the amendment that it might be better for the House to have a clear decision on amendment No. 2 and not cloud the issue on the new clause. While it would be an expression of opinion on new clause 1, especially the last sentence of it which refers to 24 weeks, I think that the House should make a clear decision on the principle—I endorse here what the Minister said—and amendment No. 2 would crystallise opinion in the House. Therefore, that is what I recommend to my hon. Friends.

Dr. Vaughan: A reference was made just now to the World Health Organisation. That illustrates the complexity of what we are talking about and the difficulties. As I said, the World Health Organisation's comments were made in a different context. The WHO definition that mentions 22 weeks was in the context of collecting statistics for comparative epidemiological purposes only and had nothing to do with abortion.

Mr. Orme: I hope that the House understood the Minister's clarification.
The medical evidence that has been put forward this morning and the editorial in The Guardiantoday shows that there is overwhelming support for terminations to take place before 24 weeks, and that the 24-week time limit would meet not only the medical but the moral aspects of this issue.
We shall return to more detailed discussion of the 24-week period, and I therefore ask my hon. Friends not to press new clause 1 and amendment No. 13. Let us have a clear-cut decision on amendment No. 2, after which the House will have a clearer view of how it should proceed.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what has just been said from both Front Benches, is it possible for you to invite the sponsors of this amendment to consider withdrawing it so that we can get on to the meat of the business which is contained in amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 48?

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I agree with those who say that we need to get on, and I have no desire to detain the House. Therefore, I shall be brief. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West


(Mr. Orme) said about having the real argument on amendment No. 2.
I rise to say two things only. First, I thank the Minister and my right hon. Friend for the guidance they have given. Secondly, I say what has been said before. Those of us who served on the long and difficult Committee considering the Bill were unanimous in our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he did his share of the work. He saw his function not as being either to facilitate or to impede the passage of the Bill but to clarify confusion—and there was a heck of a lot of confusion.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) referred to confused situations and people changing their minds. The reason why we have such a heavily loaded Amendment Paper on Report is precisely that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the argument, who did not participate in the discussions in Committee may well have looked at the Amendment Paper and Mr. Speaker's list of selection and come to the conclusion that the Committee did not do a very good job. For the Committee to report a Bill to the House with a need for so many amendments may prompt hon. Members to ask "What the heck was the Committee up to? Why did it not do its job?" If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall explain because I think that it will help those who were not members of the Committee to understand some of the confusion that has arisen and was apparent in the observations of the Minister and my right hon. Friend.
The Bill before us today is absolutely unrecognisable as the Bill which received a Second Reading. Of course, Committees amend Bills; that is their purpose. But there is a great difference between amending a Bill that goes to a Committee and totally rewriting it.
Let me quickly run through what happened and what created the confusion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to help the House, but I think that there is another hon. Gentleman who seeks to help the House also. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go into what happened in Committee.

Mr. Mikardo: All I wanted to do was to refer to some observations made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, who said that there had been a lot of confusion. I want to explain that that confusion arose from two things. First, the Bill was so badly drafted that its sponsors had to vote—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is completely out of order on this amendment. I hope that he will either speak to the amendment or make some suggestion about what the House might wish to do about it.

Mr. Mikardo: You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would be the last person in the House who would wish to incur your displeasure. All hon. Members know that I am an innocent old gentleman and that cast iron would not melt in my mouth. However, in view of what you have said, I will depart from the point I was making and, very shortly, make only one other comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, which concerns the letter from Professor Reynolds. The proposition that was put forward on the basis of that letter is a strange legislative doctrine. The worthy professor said "We have never had a foetus of 23 weeks survive, but sooner or later one will."
12 noon
On that basis, the proposition is that the House of Commons should legislate not for circumstances as they are now but for an event that may take place at some indeterminate stage in future. If we applied that principle to all legislation, Bills would be three times as long as they are—and some are too long anyway. It is an extraordinary proposition.
When circumstances change—this is why the House legislates all the time—we introduce legislation to deal with the fresh circumstances. That is always open to the House. If there were a sudden breakthrough in medical science in the near or distant future, which not even Professor Reynolds envisages, the House would be free to legislate.

Mr. Cohen: The point has been made that at this time 23 weeks has not proved viable and that no baby has survived. I use the word "baby", not "foetus".


But, according to Professor Reynolds, at 24 to 26 weeks the rate of survival was 50 per cent. in his premature unit. Therefore, we must seriously consider that matter. At 28 to 29 weeks the rate of survival in the premature unit was 85 per cent.

Mr. Mikardo: That does not controvert my argument. I am arguing not for 26, 28 or 29 weeks but for the figure in the new clause. I shall repeat what I said to make it clear. If we go lower than that figure, on the arguments put forward by Professor Reynolds, we shall be legislating for an event that may or may not take place. I suggest that it is better to legislate for that event, if it takes place, at the time that it takes place.
I am aware that there is a provision in the Bill that would cover that point, but there is an amendment to delete it, and doubtless we shall debate it in due course. As the Minister pointed out both in Committee and this morning, that provision would give him power to fix a shorter period by statutory instrument. I do not want to anticipate the debate on that matter, but I think that a change of that kind should be the subject of direct rather than indirect legislation. The point has been made that there will be an opportunity to relegislate. The Bill provides for the possibility of relegislation. I put it to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, with all the respect and affection that he knows I feel for him, that there is no case whatever for a period shorter than 24 weeks on the possibility of an advance in medical science.

Mr. Abse: Am I to understand that if we fix the period at 24 weeks and it becomes possible within the foreseeable future for a child to be viable at 22 weeks, would be in favour of giving power to the Minister to reduce that period of 24 weeks? I am asking for clarification.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not know why hon. Gentleman should ask for clarification. I have just said precisely what I feel about that matter. But, in case the hon. Gentleman had his attention distracted for a moment and did not quite take in what I said, I am happy to repeat it for his benefit. If there were a breakthrough in medical science that indicated that we should go for a shorter period

than 24 weeks, my view is that such a change—I repeat word for word what I said—should be made by direct rather than by indirect legislation. That would be too serious a matter to be decided by statutory instrument, which is not amendable, between 10 o'clock and 11.30 pm at night. But, as the Minister pointed out, we shall discuss that matter later.
I submit that the principle is already accepted in the Bill that we can legislate a change if we wish to do so. Of course we can, because Parliament is sovereign. Therefore, whatever argument may be used against the 24-week period, we cannot rest on the argument that we should not accept it because it is all right for now but it might not be in the future.
That is the only observation that I want to make. I am sorry that I have taken a little longer than I intended, but there were interventions.

Mr. W. Benyon: Mr. W. Benyon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Ennals: I think that it might be for the convenience of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is. That the Question be now put.

Mr. Ennals: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The mechanics are that the Question on the closure has to be put. The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rose to my feet because I was watching the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) very carefully, and he did not rise.

Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have accepted the closure. The right hon. Gentleman did not rise before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) moved the closure.

Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet, but that is not the point of order that I want to raise. Are we to proceed to a vote on this amendment to the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The closure has been accepted and I must put the Question. Whilst I am putting it, I cannot take any further points of order.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 179.

Division No. 166]
AYES
[12.7 pm


Abse, Leo
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marlow, Tony


Adams, Allen
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Adley, Robert
Fitch, Alan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Alexander, Richard
Fitt, Gerard
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss janet
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Alton, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Arnold, Tom
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St
Mayhew, Patrick


Aspinwall, Jack
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mellor, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Freud, Clement
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills Iain (Meriden)


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Beith, A. J.
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gow, Ian
Monro, Hector


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mudd, David


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neubert, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony


Bradford, Rev. R.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Normanton, Tom


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ogden, Eric


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan
O'Halloran, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Parry, Robert


Brotherton, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Buck, Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pendry, Tom


Budgen, Nick
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Penhaligon, David


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Percival, Sir Ian


Butcher, John
Home Robertson, John
Pollock, Alexander


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hooson, Tom
Porter, George


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Canavan, Dennis
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Johnston, Russell (Iverness)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Cope, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Latham, Michael
St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Crouch, David
Lee, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Dempsey, James
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Dewar, Donald
Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dixon, Donald
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Douglas, Dick
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Dover, Denshore
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Speller, Tony


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McMahon, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Eggar Timothy
McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Stewart. Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Emery Peter




English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Ewing, Harry
McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Eyre, Reginald
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fell Anthony
Major, John
Tebbit, Norman




Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Waller, Gary
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Thompson, Donald
Walters, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Thornton, Malcolm
Ward, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Watson, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wolfson, Mark


van Straubenzee, W. R.
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Waddington, David
Whitney, Raymond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wakeham, John
Wickenden, Keith
Mr. Vivian Bendall and


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Ian Campbell.


Wall, Patrick






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Graham, Ted
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Prescott, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Grant, John (Islington C)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hardy, Peter
Race, Reg


Ashton, Joe
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judit[...]/
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
Robertson, George


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hicks, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Homewood, William
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hooley, Frank
Scott, Nicholas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Sever, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Short, Mrs Renée


Browne, John (Winchester)
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilfedder, James A.
Snape, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Soley, Clive


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Coleman, Donald
Knox, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lambie, David
Squire, Robin


Cook, Robin F.
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cowans, Harry
Leighton, Ronald
Stoddart, David


Crowther, J. S.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stott, Roger


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William
Tilley, John


Dormand, Jack
McWilliam, John
Torney, Tom


Dubs, Alfred
Magee, Bryan
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marks, Kenneth
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Durant, Tony
Marland, Paul
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maxton, John
Watkins, David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mikardo, Ian
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Welsh, Michael


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Wheeler, John


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Morton, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Forrester, John
Neale, Gerrard
Winnick, David


Foster, Derek
Nelson, Anthony
Woodall, Alec


Foulkes, George
Newens, Stanley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
O'Neill, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Sheila


Gardiner George (Reigate)
Palmer, Arthur



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John
Dr. M. S. Miller and


Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. William Hamilton

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Ennals: rose—

Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Ennals: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did rise, but you did not see me. I was rising before you put the Question. I wish to explain that, in view of the Minister's words, which were extremely helpful about amendment No.
2, I proposed to withdraw the new clause. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he wished to withdraw the clause, but I had no alternative but to put the Question on the closure.

New Clause 8

EARLY ABORTION

(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion if
(a) a pregnancy is terminated by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner; and
(b) that registered medical practitioner is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not lasted for more than six weeks.
(2) For the purposes of this section references to termination of pregnancy include acts done with intent to terminate a pregnancy should such exist and the expression "pregnancy" shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Miss Richardson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Jo Richardson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause has two objectives. The first is to allow abortion during the first six weeks of pregnancy, irrespective of grounds. Many hon. Members will immediately suggest that that is abortion on demand, but I beg them to listen to my remarks.
The clause provides that only one doctor need be involved and his opinion required only as to the six-week limit. That is not even abortion on request. The doctor will be under no compulsion to examine the patient or carry out the abortion. It will enable a woman, one hopes having discussed the matter with her partner and family, legally to ask for an abortion in the first six weeks of pregnancy, without the constraints in the Bill. [Interruption.] It is difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make myself heard.

Dr. Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may not agree with the hon. Lady's views, but I should like to hear them. It is almost impossible to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is most discour-

teous of hon. Members not to remain silent when the hon. Lady is addressing the House.

Miss Richardson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The limit of six weeks is chosen specifically because it is a period within which it is possible to abort by menstrual extraction. That is the simplest, safest and medically most desirable method.
It would put beyond doubt the legality of "speculative" abortion—the use of intra-uterine devices, various pills and so on. The House should remember that, generally speaking, our present abortion law dates back to the nineteenth century and is hopelessly out of date. I do not know whether such problems were discussed 100 years ago, but had they been there would have been no knowledge about the kind of contraception that we accept as part of the normal routine of life today.
The abortion law is antiquated and we need a measure that will allow the new pills and devices that will appear in the next decade to be free of possible prosecutions through doubtful legality. The practice of new techniques is widespread and I believe that it is ethical. Newer techniques are on the way. I heard only the other day from a doctor that it will not be long before a woman can take a pill as a means of abortion. I do not fully understand such techniques, but they are being developed. Nothing we can say will prevent such developments in the medical science of contraception.
The Bill is restrictive, but we should be sensible and consider the problems that may arise if women are not allowed a choice during that safe early period of six weeks. We should not be swayed by emotional comments about abortion on demand but consider the practicalities and the need to update the law.
Judging from the newspapers and letters that we receive, it seems that over half the population in the last few months has been considering the question of abortion because the Bill has been before the House. We all know of people—and some of us may have personal experience—who have had problems over mistaken pregnancy. In Committee I mentioned one such case. Under the system that I am proposing, a life might have been saved.
Three or four years ago, Mrs, Susan Bradbury, who had serious health problems, gave birth to a child who was badly deformed and who died after a few days. The couple decided that they would have no more children and Mrs. Bradbury started to take the pill. Through no fault of either of them, Mrs. Bradbury became pregnant early last year. She had a bad heart, narrow arteries, only one kidney and other difficulties, and when Mrs. Bradbury was only four or five weeks pregnant they decided that she should seek an abortion. She was referred to the Wythenshawe hospital by her general practitioner and was kept there for several days for tests. Her husband has shown me her diary. She had the strong impression that the staff in that unit were unsympathetic to abortion.
She was examined by the consultant gynaecologist, because she was asking for an abortion on health grounds. His view was that her health was good enough for her to have the baby, which overruled her view. To be fair, he told her to go away and think about it, and, if she was having further health difficulties, to come back again. However, it was his view that she was perfectly able to have a child in the normal way and would not suffer.
The couple wanted a child and only decided that Mrs. Bradbury should take the pill because of her health. They felt that the consultant gynaecologist must know what he was talking about. She went to term, and died giving birth to the child. She died because she was not allowed to have an abortion. Had we had a provision such as in this clause, Mrs. Bradbury, having consulted her husband, would have been able to obtain an abortion. I am sure that a doctor would have agreed that, with her family and health circumstances, she should do so.
I quote that one case but I dare say that there are hundreds more, perhaps thousands over many years, in which people who might have had an abortion were prevented from doing so because of the narrowness of the law. I hope that the House will think seriously about this matter and will use the opportunity of the Bill, which, although restrictive in some parts, could be used to introduce a little progress. Progress is on us in terms of increased facilities for contra-

ception, but it has not been properly legalised under the Abortion Act 1967.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I listened most carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). I silently cheered when she recommended that no emotional arguments should be used and that we should examine only the practicalities of the matter. She then went on with a highly emotional argument about a poor lady who had all sorts of health problems and who died because she accepted the gynaecologist's belief that she could have a child safely. The hon. Lady then went on to say that she had no doubt that there must be hundreds or even thousands of women in similar circumstances. I should be astonished if there were even 100 cases of death in childbirth in the last year, let alone 1,000 in the years since the Act began to operate.
I shall take the hon. Lady's advice and suggest to the House that we look at this new clause in a totally practical way. Let us examine its meaning. It advocates that very early terminations should be carried out, not by a doctor only. It says:
terminated by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner".
The new clause says, in effect, that very early abortions should be permitted to be carried out by persons who are not doctors. The phrase
under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner
could mean that the doctor would not only not be looking on but that he might not even be in the house. He could be upstairs watching television. In fact, a young student doctor of my acquaintance was recently doing clinics "under medical supervision" and the supervisor in question was at a different hospital at the time. It is well known and understood that
under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner
is a well-used phrase which certainly does not mean that a doctor should be looking on. I beg the House to appreciate exactly what the new clause would mean in practice.
I showed this new clause to a medical doctor, who read it very carefully and


then exclaimed that it was a proposal for legalising back-street abortions because no doctor need be in attendance. I should have thought that that would be unacceptable to the House. We have heard many things about back-street abortions, a phrase often used in a very emotional way, but here we have a proposal for legalising such abortions.
The new clause wants the pregnancy terminated if it has not lasted for more than six weeks. But a woman would not even know she was pregnant under six weeks. She might suspect that she was, but she would not know. That is absolute medical fact. She could not even get a reliable pregnancy test at that time because any reputable doctor would say that there was no point in taking a pregnancy test until at least 15 days after the last missed period. Thus, if the new clause were agreed to no one could be sure whether the woman was even pregnant. Some women would be, but others would not. It is extraordinary to advocate an operation which might not be necessary.
In either case—whether a woman was pregnant or not—the operation would be what is medically termed a menstrual extraction. Again, we must look at the wording of the new clause and appreciate that what we are discussing is the possibility of a menstrual extraction being done not by a doctor and not even by a registered nurse. The new clause says nothing about the operator having any medical qualifications. This leads us to the unhappy truth that the girl on the table could not even have an anaesthetic because, by law, before an anaesthetic can be administered, a doctor must be present.
I am assured that a menstrual extraction is a very painful operation, and without an anaesthetic it would hurt a girl greatly. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has appeciated that fact. I have checked these facts medically and I assure the House that they are absolutely true. The new clause suggests that in many cases there would be no possibility of a girl having an anaesthetic, yet the operation could be very painful. I am also assured that it is particularly painful when the patient is not pregnant.
Apart from these medical facts, there are ethical objections to the new clause.

Again and again, when the 1967 Act was going through the House, we were told that it would not lead to abortion on demand. Many hon. Members voted for it on that assumption and because they believed that promise was true.

Mr. Reg Race: Before the hon. Lady moves to the question of abortion on demand, I urge her to reflect on the terms of the new clause, which make it quite clear that a pregnancy would be
terminated by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner.
As I understand those words, there is no suggestion whatsoever that a doctor would not be present at the termination of pregnancy.

Mrs. Knight: I regret that the hon. Member has not been listening to what I have been saying. The term
under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner.
does not mean that the operation is done under the eye of a doctor. The hon. Member has been duped if he believes that that is so. As I explained, the term means that the doctor does not have to be present and that he need not even be in the house. The term is often used when a student who is "under medical supervision" is operating with no doctor there at all. If hon. Members do not understand this, I can only ask them to check the facts. I assure the House that these are the facts in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."]

Dr. Glyn: Will my hon. Friend accept that "under the supervision of" does not mean that the D and C is performed by the doctor? It may well be that in a recognised hospital a student does it under the supervision of a doctor; but that is not what the new clause says.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. As I read the new clause, the abortion does not even have to be carried out in premises registered for the operation. I beg the House to appreciate exactly what it is being asked to do.
I must return to the question of ethical objections and remind the House that the 1967 Act was passed only because hon. Members believed that it would not lead to abortion on demand. A great deal was said at that time, and if one looks at


the records one sees that there is no question but that that was so. Here is a suggestion that, as the hon. Lady has admitted, would mean abortion on demand.

Miss Richardson: I specifically said the opposite. I said that it was not even on request, because the doctor had the right to refuse it. A woman could say "I demand or request it, and you must do it." That is not what the clause says.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady is very nave or very ignorant of the way in which the 1967 Act has been operated. She and I may disagree on how it has been operated, but even the BMA has made it clear that it agrees that at present abortion is carried out virtually on request. If the clause went through, there would be no doubt, because a woman would believe that the law had given her a right to have an abortion under six weeks.
The House does not agree that abortion is a simple, easy operation which has no connotations. It is a matter of great seriousness and an act for which there must be a good reason.

Mr. Cohen: Is it not true that in their evidence to the Select Committee the BMA and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists admitted that, arising from the 1967 Act, abortion on demand was effective and operative, and that they were concerned about this?

Mrs. Knight: Indeed, and there have been many on the pro-abortion side of the argument who have acknowledged that quite openly. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and I should have thought that the matter needed no further argument.

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I have given away enough, and I must get on.
Abortion is not a simple, no-account matter. [Interruption.] It is a serious matter and should not be carried out without a serious reason. The clause rejects that view and goes four-square for abortion being used merely as an alternative to contraception. [Interruption.] I cannot accept that, because it is im-

mensely important for women to take responsibility for what they do and to take measures not to become pregnant, rather than to have this let-out, which is clearly a sort of abortion to be used instead of contraception. [HON. MEMBERS "Rubbish."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but sedentary interruptions are very unfair when they are continual. I know that there is a great deal of emotion about this subject, but hon. Members must restrain themselves.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to make a very short speech. I have given way a number of times, and I am anxious to conclude, so that other hon. Members may speak.
I suggest that the House should reject the clause, first, because it would undoubtedly lead to early abortion on demand or on request. It would be used as a method of contraception, and it is wrong that abortion should ever be used in that way.
Secondly, the operation would frequently be carried out by totally unqualified persons. That, too, is something that the House should not accept.
Thirdly, there would frequently be no anaesthetic available for women facing this extremely painful procedure 
12.45 pm
Fourthly, the operation would not even always be necessary, because not all the women concerned would be pregnant, and certainly none would be sure that they were. There are also possibilities that the operation could be harmful to the woman. I regard the present abortion procedure as seriously deficient, in that a woman is never warned of the possibilities of danger—not in all cases, but they exist—and she has a right to be warned. Certainly, such a procedure as we are now considering could be harmful.
Fifthly, if it is suggested that if the clause were passed the operation should be done within the National Health Service, the House should consider whether that might not be a gross waste of public money, particularly when the woman would not even know whether she was pregnant.
For all these reasons, I recommend the House to reject the clause.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I recommend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to stick to subjects that she knows a little about and is good at. She is a very good singer; I have heard her sing.
At six weeks, an abortion is a simple, safe and easy matter. Whether one has a moral objection to it is another story, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is simple, safe and easy. I do not know where she picked up her little titbits of medical information, but certainly she did not go the same university as I did.
I am glad, however, that the hon. Lady is against back-street abortions. We shall listen with care to what she says later, if the Bill gets on to the statute book, when back-street abortions flourish as they did before.
The hon. Lady made heavy weather of her medical information. I assure her that it is not extremely difficult—or impossible, as she said—to detect pregnancy as early as six weeks. There is a cervical thickening that can be felt, and with the knowledge of the missed period it is by no means impossible for a reasonably qualified physician to have a good idea whether a girl is pregnant.
Those who are opposed to abortion keep speaking about its being available on demand. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) talks about doctors flouting the law. If they are flouting the law, that means that there is no abortion on demand, because if they were not flouting the law that would be abortion on demand. Therefore, there must be no abortion on demand.
In any case, I know many doctors who would undoubtedly have no compunction whatsoever in denying any woman's request to have an abortion.

Miss Richardson: And do.

Dr. Miller: However, I am not entirely in favour of the clause as it stands.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will not take issue with me. I know her objectives. Early abortions should be the aim, because they are safe and simple. In any case, most abortions are done very early in this country. In some countries there is abortion on request, not up to six

weeks but up to 12 weeks. I think of countries not very far from here. However, that is another matter. It is not what we are discussing.
One of the two reasons that I shall give for not being in favour of the clause is that I think that it is badly framed. It should be made quite clear that there should be not simply the supervision but the presence of a doctor. If my hon. Friend takes that as a criticism, may I tell her that it is a criticism not of her idea but of how the clause is worded. Also, there should be a second opinion. After all, it is not all that difficult. Two doctors should be involved
Whether my hon. Friends like it or not, there will be a strong accusation that the clause will lead to abortion on demand. We should cut away the frills and get down to the real argument. Is abortion morally defensible? I believe that it is defensible in certain circumstances. The 1967 Act sets out the circumstances as well as any Act of Parliament can do.
The idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is good, because very soon—in development terms "very soon" could mean two or three years—there will be what is known as a morning-after pill. An abortifacient is already in use. The coil is not a contraceptive. The intra-uterine device does not prevent conception. When conception takes place, the coil acts as an irritant and the contents of the uterus are evacuated. If any woman using a coil imagines that she is using a contraceptive, and therefore is not morally obliged to stop using it, she should realise that it will cause an abortion if she becomes pregnant. Shortly there will be a morning-after pill, and although it is probable that many women will take the pill and not worry about whether they are causing an abortion, it should be specified that they are not breaking the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that we cannot legislate for future occurrences. Since we do not yet have the morning-after pill, I do not think it is right that we should legislate, but we should examine the situation from time to time. While I agree with the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, I do not agree with the way in which the clause is worded, and, therefore, I cannot accept it.

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman is correct in many ways. I am opposed to the clause because of the way in which it is drafted. It does not ensure that a qualified person will carry out an operation. There is no moral principle, but there is a practical principle of danger to a patient. An unqualified person could easily carry out the operation and cause intense peritonitis and so on. I do not believe that the provisions in the clause would provide the patient with adequate security. The abortion could be carried out in any back street, without the personal supervision, or the personal action, of the doctor concerned. Purely for medical reasons, I believe that the clause does not contain a practical proposition.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the House will seriously consider this new clause. It is intended to force the House to talk about the problem of early pregnancies.
Some hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They talk emotively about cases, which form a small number of late abortions, to argue against the Abortion Act 1967. At the same time, they are not prepared to support the provision of proper NHS facilities for early abortions or the extension of early day-care terminations, which would enable us to dispose of many of the difficulties that arise with late abortions. There is a very small percentage of late abortions. The new clause is specifically designed to ask the House to consider the implications of early day-care terminations.
I understand the points made by medically qualified hon. Members about the hazards that occur when medical terminations are not properly supervised. It has been my experience that other operations, which are said to be supervised, are not necessarily carried out by a specific consultant or registrar. In some instances they are carried out by students. We must be careful before we suggest that the law should be tightened only in the case of abortion.
It is obvious, however, that as new forms of contraception are developed—it is happening every day—and as they become more widely used, the medical practitioner will find himself more and more at risk. The 1967 Act

cleared up the legal position of the medical profession.
The bulk of medical theory is strongly in favour of day-care facilities under the NHS, but if there is always to be a grey area of the law where the medical profession is not clear about its position it will eternally wonder whether the House has produced workable laws. We are not here to produce legislation that is unworkable. We are here to produce sufficient protection for the medical profession when it is carrying out services which are needed by the majority of the population.
We should remember that in the majority of cases women are not receiving abortion on demand, which is the argument that is always used, but it is not so. The figures prove time and again that in certain parts of the country there is virtually no abortion on demand. One reason for the growth in the charitable sector is that certain areas are staffed by doctors who have strong personal feelings about abortion—feelings to which they are entitled—that result in women in those areas having no choice. The doctors have a choice, but the patients do not.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. Lady aware that medical politics also apply? There are instances of anti-abortion professors making sure that junior doctors are not promoted if they carry out an abortion.

1 pm

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I trust that the House will remember that when discussing the conscience clauses. We hear a great deal about the nurses who are terrified of making known their views, but we rarely hear of the reverse side of the coin.

Mrs. Knight: Doctors are entitled to interpret the law as they see it. When the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dun-woody) is thinking about the point made by her hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), she should remember the committee report which made it clear that young doctors who do not wish to perform abortions are sometimes refused jobs. That is also wrong.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Four members of my immediate family are in the medical profession. One is a medical student coming to the end of his training. In all professions, many forms of moral blackmail are exercised against young people. I dispute that there is only one side to the argument. Few nurses and doctors are afraid to object to abortion because that may damage their careers. They are vociferous when it suits them. There are two sides to the problem.
I am anxious because in certain areas women looking for abortions but who do not have the necessary money have to go outside the National Health Service. I should like them to have easily available early day-care facilities. That would mean less risk to the mother. It is common to talk about the risks of abortion to the mother, but there are also risks to the mother involved in live childbirth. That is not often discussed by those who seek to abolish all forms of abortion.
By all means, let us discuss whether the Bill is worded strongly enough. Let us also address ourselves to why there are insufficient day-care centres and insufficient opportunities for early abortions. We should be prepared to examine the law in order to protect those doctors who are faced with problems as new forms of contraceptive are developed. I ask the House not to reject the new clause out of hand, because it has much to commend it.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I do not wish to turn this into a debate on foetal physiology. However, a substantial amount of time could have been saved had we had the advice of an expert embryologist about the changes in the foetus between 20 and 28 weeks. We are discussing early foetal physiology. It is possible to detect pregnancy within three weeks of implantation. It is easy to detect a pregnancy well before a woman is six weeks pregnant. I do not wish to let the House in on the tricks of the trade of gynaecologists. They had tricks of the trade long before 1967 and they have them now in 1980.
If a lady decides, after an early pregnancy test, to visit a gynaecologist, she will be offered one of two ways of terminating that pregnancy, if the gynaecologist decides to terminate it. One way will be illegal and the other legal. If the

gynaecologist decides to place a small amount of local anaesthetic around the cervix, he will be able to use suction to take away the product of pregnancy. That is called abortion on demand. Sometimes it is called lunchtime abortion, after which an office girl can return to her routine work. If the gynaecologist decides to insert an intra-uterine device, that is illegal but will result in the same end. It is high time that we cleared up that situation. The National Health Service would do well to spend money on setting up day-care clinics which can be supervised.
I am unhappy about the phrase
or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner".
The words "in the presence of" would be better. The technique of locally infiltrating the neck of the cervix involves a tiny technical operation and requires considerable expertise. The removal of the product of conception by suction does not require the expertise that is needed for the application of an anaesthetic which makes the operation acceptable to the woman.
The oral contraceptive pill is going through a bad time. I recently attended a symposiumm on birth control. The whole tenor of that symposium was pessimistic. The pill was introduced 20 years ago. The mini-pill was developed and everybody thought that we had conquered the problem of contraception. The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction. More and more women of child-bearing age are being told that they must not take the pill. Thousands of women have come off the combined pill in the last year because they are over 35 years of age. Women who are over a certain age and smoke more than a given number of cigarettes are told that they should come off the pill. Women who are a certain percentage overweight are told that they should come off the pill, as are women with thrombotic complications. What will replace the pill? It is proposed to replace it with an intra-uterine device, although the insertion of such a device can be illegal.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I am unhappy about the new clause for two reasons. The first reason has been dealt with adequately by hon. Members from both sides who have


medical experience. I refer to the word "supervision". I agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) that the word "presence" is more appropriate, if we are to consider the proposal at all.
I am unhappy about the new clause for a second reason, which has not yet been ventilated. There may be no difficulty in determining that a woman is pregnant within four to six weeks, but the availability of abortion within six weeks does not allow ample time for consultation with advisers or the family. If abortion is available at six weeks, does that allow sufficient time for the woman to evaluate the effects of an abortion?
I have no medical experience, but I have had considerable experience in counselling, including counselling people with great psychological difficulties, following experiences such as an abortion. We must afford a great deal longer than one or, at the most, two weeks for a person to evaluate the psychological consequences of undertaking an abortion. We should avail the person of more time to consult not only medical practitioners and their families but, where it applies, their religious advisers. On a significant number of occasions, those who have had abortions have to grapple later with serious guilt complexes which result in all kinds of major traumas. A two-week period, at the most, is not a sufficiently lengthy period of time for the important pursuit of consultation with medical, spiritual and family advisers.

Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich): Before the debate on this new clause I was genuinely a floating voter. I wanted to hear what was said about the new clause and to make up my mind on the basis of that. I have heard medical opinion expressed on both sides of the argument. On the arguments so far, it seems to me that, while what we may do in the future is something that future Parliaments can consider, it would be better to recognise the state of public opinion, as it exists today, by preserving the safeguards and limitations that are contained in the law as it stands. It is possible that, within a short time, the advances that have been spoken about will be such that it would be proper to go beyond the law as it now stands. I do not think that the public are ready for that yet.
It was interesting that, during the last debate, those opposing the view I take on the question of time—the 24-week period—and who wish to make the period shorter were arguing on the basis of what advances may occur in the future and those who support this new clause are arguing equally on the basis of advances that may take place in the future. I believe that it is better, in both cases, to leave the future to take care of itself and to deal with it then.
Subsection (2) of the new clause has hardly been referred to. It seems to me, however, a matter of great importance. I can, perhaps, refer to it now in view of the fact that new clause 7—this is in no sense a criticism—has not been selected. That new clause raises the point directly in relation to the Abortion Act as a whole. The same point is raised in relation to this proposed new clause by subsection (2) as would have been raised, had we been debating it, in relation to the principal Act as a whole, by new clause 7.
A year or two ago, there was a good deal of public discussion on the question whether an abortion, otherwise fully within the limitations of the Abortion Act, would none the less be illegal if it turned out, perhaps to the surprise of everyone, that the woman was not pregnant.
1.15 pm
It is highly surprising that such a result could even be conceivable. When asked to advise about the matter, I advised that it was most unlikely that a court in those circumstances would ever convict. None the less, there is a real doubt about the language of the statute. It arises in this way. Under the law relating to abortion before the 1967 Act, an abortion was rightly made illegal even if it turned out, or even if it was known to the person performing it, that the woman was not pregnant. The purpose of the law was to prevent back-street operations. It therefore made no difference whether the woman was pregnant or not.
In the 1967 Act, we used the term
when a pregnancy is terminated".
On the literal meaning of those words, there must be a pregnancy to be terminated. If, therefore, it turns out that there is not a pregnancy—if those who thought there was a pregnancy were wrong—then, literally speaking, it may be said, and so it was argued, that the protection given


by the 1967 Act does not apply, and that if it did not apply, it would not apply not merely to the doctors but to everyone—the nurses and so on—who, however unwittingly, took part in the operation. That was clearly a situation that could not be contemplated.
I found it difficult to believe, and expressed my view accordingly, that a court would convict in those circumstances. But other views existed. Professor Glanville Williams expressed a strong view similar to mine. The purpose of subsection (2) of the new clause is to remove that uncertainty. If this new clause is not passed—indeed, whether it is passed or not—uncertainty will still remain in relation to the Abortion Act as a whole. If it is not passed, it remains even more uncertain. We shall not know whether it was not passed because of subsection (1) or (2), or both. We are not likely to have an opportunity in this House of declaring the law so as to put that doubt aside.
I am glad to see the Attorney-General in the House. I am sure that he will read what I have said in Hansardtomorrow even if he does not hear it at the moment. I suggest to him that if the matter cannot be dealt with in this House, it should be dealt with in another place so that this particular doubt, however ephemeral, can be set at rest once and for all.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) with a view to determining what was the mischief that she sought to have remedied by new clause 8. I was greatly puzzled by her example of how the new clause might operate. She drew on the experience of the sad couple in Wythenshawe. That case, it seems to me, would not be helped by the passage of the new clause. If I understood her aright, the couple concerned wanted to have a child and acted on the advice of a gynaecologist that they could do so without risk. That advice subsequently proved to be wrong.
But new clause 8 would make no difference. It would not lead to the offering of different advice in those circumstances. If that is the only evil to be eradicated by the new clause, I cannot see a case for it. The difficulty is related to much more fundamental questions. The House has

heard about the constantly changing medical situation. We are in difficulties if we try to introduce terms, during which it is permissible to do certain things and beyond which it is not permissible, which are based upon an understanding of what at any point is the development of medical science. We face this problem most acutely in respect of the 24-week period.
I fear that we shall be placed in similar difficulties over this six-week period. As medical science developed, so that period in itself might seem inappropriate even for my hon. Friend's purposes and some further amendment of the law might be sought. We should not seek to amend the law in this way until there is a clear and settled medical opinion in support of my hon. Friend's case. She did not produce overwhelming evidence that medical opinion was so clear and settled. One must, therefore, wait upon the development of medical opinion and knowledge.
A further point has not been touched on in this short debate. If we introduce a period during which no criteria are required against which the doctor must act, we may put pressure on those who have pregnancies, which may not have arisen deliberately, to decide whether to go ahead and in that short period to make a decision which they may afterwards rue. That would be highly undesirable, because the capacity to become pregnant on one occasion does not necessarily mean that parents will be able to have a child in the future.
The new clause would put highly undesirable pressure on pregnant women. It would also be difficult for doctors to administer if they felt that a woman was seeking a medical termination in a state of mind which they did not consider settled. In that case, of course, as my hon. Friend said, they are not obliged to terminate a pregnancy, but it is a difficult situation for them.
For those separate reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause.

Mrs. Renée Short: As one who has had experience of discussing this law, both before the 1967 Act and since, with the several attempts to amend it, I am amazed that, after 14 years, the same old jejune and shopworn arguments are brought out as we have heard from the


hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and others.
We are told that abortion on demand exists. That is meant to be a blanket objection to the working of the Abortion Act. Yet hard evidence is never presented. We have not heard a word from the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bute and North Arshire (Mr. Corrie), who has been here since 9.30 this morning and who appears now to be engaged in conversation. I can wait.
I was just saying that we have not heard a word from the sponsor of the Bill on any amendment that has been suggested so far. I wonder whether he has a view about any of the amendments suggested to his Bill. If so, the House is entitled to hear it. We need his help and guidance, do we not? We want to hear from the sponsor his views on the amendments moved so far. Otherwise, it is difficult for us to reach a view on them.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston wants it both ways. She attacks what she calls abortion on demand, those who carry out late abortions and women who present for late abortions. But this new clause would remove the need for late abortion and would encourage women to seek help as early as possible in pregnancy, so that the difficulties, the feeling of guilt, which have been referred to could be overcome.
Incidentally, men always think that women have feelings of guilt, but women have a different view. Women are the ones who become pregnant and they are the ones who seek relief if they do not want the pregnancy to continue. A large number of women become pregnant after the use of contraceptive methods, either by themselves or by their partners. This talk of guilt is a confused and particularly male view of the situation. Women take a different view.
It is amazing that the House should be debating yet another attempt to amend the 1967 Act without ever having discussed the Lane report—which I pressed on my own Front Bench many times. It is incredible that there should be one amendment Bill after another, yet the House has never considered the recommendations of the Lane committee, which was set up to investigate the working of the Abortion Act, including the alleged abuses.
The Lane report laid practically all those accusations, yet the House has never debated it, so hon. Members generally do not know what its recommendations were.

Mr. John Corrie (Bute and North Ayrshire): rose—

Mrs. Short: Hooray—it worked.

Mr. Corrie: The hon. Lady has managed to stir me to my feet.
That is exactly why I have given the House the Bill—so that it can make up its mind. I do not think that any of the other Bills got any further than Committee. At long last, after about 12 years, hon. Members are being given the opportunity to discuss such a Bill. Whatever happens at the end, whether the Bill stands or falls, at least people outside will know that the House has decided exactly how it should go.

Mrs. Short: That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard from any hon. Member who has introduced a Bill of this kind. If the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire had read the conclusions of the Lane Committees he would have found that the committee decided that the abortion Act was working very well by and large. The Lane committee did not propose any changes or amendments to the Act. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework.
Since the Lane committee reported, we have had the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, which specifically dealt with the question of early abortions. The Royal Commission recommended that at least 75 per cent. of terminations of pregnancies should be carried out on the National Health Service. The Commission also pointed out the need for day-care abortions and specifically said that if more day-care abortions were carried out on the National Health Service the cost of carrying out abortions overall could be reduced.

Mr. Corrie: May I point out that every Bill that has been brought forward has had a majority on Second Reading in this House.

Mrs. Short: I am not sure what that is intended to prove. It rather proves my case, which is that hon. Members were


not particularly well informed about how the Act was working.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mrs. Short: Otherwise, if we discount the Lane committee, the Royal Commission report and, I was going on to mention, a Select Committee of this House—

Sir Bernard Braine: Sir Bernard Braine rose—

Mrs. Short: I see that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) cannot sit in his seat. I refer him to another Select Committee—a rather more reputable Select Committee—of this House than the one that he is pleased to quote all the time. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Sir Bernard Braine: I cannot resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). She has made great play of the fact that the Lane committee report was not debated in this House. She is correct. It was not debated as such, but the committee's views were taken fully into account by the Select Committee. The views of the Lane committee were also taken fully into account by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) when he introduced his Bill, and the committee's views were taken fully into account by me when I spoke earlier today. The Lane committee made it absolutely plain that abortion on demand was not the law of the land, nor should it ever be.

Mrs. Short: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I began to speak. I think that I dealt with the point that he has raised when I said that we did not have abortion on demand.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mrs. Short: I opened my remarks by saying that I found it depressing that, in all the years that I have been in the House and involved in debates on this subject and several attempts to amend the Act, the same old mythology is constantly brought up. What the hon. Gentleman to bring forward any evidence. He may say that he had regard to the views of says is not true and he is quite unable the Lane committee, but he successfully

ignored them. Those views have not borne in on him at all. He has not changed his views. They are the same as they were 14 years ago.

Mr. Maclennan: I was rising in support of my hon. Friend's general point and hoping that she would not allow to go unchallenged the remarks of the sponsor about the significance to be drawn from the fact that the majority of this House had on several occasions voted in support of a Second Reading. Many of us supported the Second Reading of the Bill precisely because we took the view that the issue was an important one which concerned the public and ought to be fully considered and debated, with line-by-line consideration being given to many of these matters. But that did not imply in any sense the suggestion, which I deeply resent, that one is happy about the Bill, either as originally drafted or as it has come back out of Committee.

Mrs. Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, because this is an entirely different Bill from the one on which the House voted on Second Reading.
When I gave way to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East I was about to go on to say that there has been another Select Committee of the House, more recent than the ones to which he was referring, which specifically considered the question of termination of pregnancy. I refer to the Select Committee on Expenditure, which was looking at the whole area of preventive medicine. We had evidence from distinguished obstetricians and gynaecologists who were able to give us facts about the cost of carrying out a large number of day-care terminations. The cost of a day-care abortion done very early in pregnancy is about £23. That is probably one-third or one-quarter of the cost of carrying out a later abortion, when it is necessary for the woman to be an in-patient and to spend some time in hospital. From the point of view of economy, this is a very powerful argument. From the point of view of the woman and the ease of carrying out the procedure—if it is carried out by a doctor or by someone skilled in vaginal examination, for example, a midwife or a nurse—there is no comparison. This can be done without any of the


psychological problems to which reference has been made. It would make it possible for the woman to go home after a few hours' rest.
One of the reasons why I support the proposal of the Lane Committee and the Royal Commission—and, indeed, the Select Committee on preventive medicine—in regard to the need to set up daycare clinics is precisely that in some parts of the country, as has been pointed out already, the attitude of the consultant gynaecologist, particularly the attitude of the professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the teaching hospital in the region, has made it very difficult for women to obtain abortions. Indeed, his influence can be felt throughout the whole of the region.
This was the case in the West Midlands, where Professor McLaren was the professor at Birmingham teaching hospital, and had great influence on the appointment of registrars, of new consultants and of doctors who were to work in obstetrics and gynaecology. He also had great influence on the training of students. His ideas can be spread to the students who come under his teaching during the years when he is the professor in the department. His views can also colour their attitudes. Of course, that cuts both ways. But the attitudes of the general public, men and women, people of all religions—and I include the Roman Catholics—have shown very recently that there is general support for the Act.
While some changes may be acceptable, such as reducing the period—a matter that we are to debate later—in general, public opinion supports the Act. This has been the view of most of the press, with the exception of The Times, of course, although The Timeshas produced some very good letters recently in its correspondence columns. I quote from a letter from the consultant gynaecologist at the Royal Free hospital, which appeared two days ago. She said that one of her beliefs is that
if a woman is to mother to the best of her ability"—
this is important, because nobody has yet raised the question of the unwanted child who may be born after the termination has been refused—
she must decide, in the light of her own particular circumstances, on the limitation of her own fertility.

With the difficulties and failures of contraception, that decision is sometimes taken out of the woman's hands. The gynaecologist goes on to say:
No method of contraception is 100 per cent. safe; but there is no more crippling endowment than to be an unwanted child.
As I say, we tend to overlook the problems and the needs, the psychological needs in particular, of the unwanted child that may be born after a termination of pregnancy has been refused, for whatever reason—whether the woman is pregnant because of a contraceptive failure or has to continue with the pregnancy because of the attitude of the doctor from whom she seeks advice.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is it not a fact that at present adoption societies have very many more adoptive parents on their books than children with which to give them the pleasure of having a child?

Mrs. Short: That is another part of the mythology that never seems to change. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any children's homes in his constituency. If so, are they empty or full? If there are children there, what sort of children are they? [An HON. MEMBER: "Black."]. There are many young black boys and girls who would love to have a good—

Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough): rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. May we have only one hon. Lady on her feet at a time, please?

Mrs. Short: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to follow up the point that she was just making, because a myth is growing up in Britain that it would be a marvellous idea if all the women that wished to have abortions were prevented from doing so and the children were farmed out for adoption by all the people who are lining up in queues waiting to adopt them. The unfortunate thing about children in care in our society is that, yes, there are children waiting to be adopted, but I doubt very much whether large numbers of people who use this argument would adopt those


children that are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Does my hon. Friend agree with me that large numbers of these children are handicapped, black or—

Mr. Tony Marlow: That is not what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) was talking about.

Miss Lestor: Will the hon. Member just keep quiet for a moment and listen?
Many of them are handicapped, many are black and many have been left in care for so long that they have passed the age at which all the people who say that they want to adopt children are prepared to adopt them. That is the truth of the matter.

Mrs. Short: My hon. Friend, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. She is absolutely right. It is a specious argument which is always raised. But the people who are campaigning against those of us who want a liberal, fair abortion law for both patients and doctors are not the people who have—I do not suppose—any experience of adopting and taking into their homes the kind of children that are left behind. Mostly, they want, I think, blue-eyed, fair-haired little girls. [Interruption.] Red-haired—yes, how about that?
That is the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold water.

Mr. Cohen: I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the Member of the European Parliament who represents the Yorkshire area. He has adopted children who are coloured. In the city of Leeds, we have a three-year waiting list for people who are unable to produce their own babies but are anxious to provide a happy home life for babies. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby. Babies are possibly unwanted by their parents, but they are not unwanted by the community. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that into account.

Mrs. Short: It is splendid if my hon. Friend has in his area people such as that gentleman who are queueing up to adopt. But has my hon. Friend done any research into the question of the kind of children that they want to adopt? That is the point I am making. I am not saying that there are not people

who are willing to adopt. I am saying that there are people who will not adopt children who are put into local authority care—otherwise, we could close down all the local authority homes and save a large amount of money. But, of course, that is not true.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Short: I have given way at least half a dozen times.

Mr. Freud: On this point, will the hon. Lady please give way?

Mrs. Short: All right.

Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that adoption societies need children is surely the worst reason for having a child that one does not want?

Mrs. Short: I agree, but that is how things are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) described the procedure referred to in the amendment. I believe that it is correct to say that it is a small plastic tube that is used and that evacuating the uterus at the time of pregnancy produces a quantity of substance that would fill an egg cup. So we are not talking about something that is drastic or very painful. There is no foundation for what has been said about it being a grossly painful procedure. I suppose that in time it is something that women could learn to do for themselves, though I would not like to do it. I would not recommend it, but we must accept that knowledge expands and improves; and who are we, in this male-dominated House, to say that women should not avail themselves of new techniques and knowledge in this area?
I hope that the clause will be carefully considered by the House. In the interests of early abortions, it is perfectly acceptable. It has the support of reputable gynaecologists. A number of committees have looked at the Abortion Act, including the Lane committee, a Select Committee of the House and the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. I commend the clause to the House.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF PRINCIPAL ACT

Miss Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 8, leave out "less than 20 weeks" and insert "27 weeks or less".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out "less than 20 weeks" and insert "24 weeks or less".
No. 48, in page 1, line 8, leave out "less than 20 weeks" and insert "20 weeks or less".

Miss Richardson: My amendment seeks to fix the upper time limit in the Bill at 27 weeks. There is a principal amendment dealing with a 24-week limit which we shall come to in a moment. Naturally, if it were a choice between 24 weeks, 22 weeks and 20 weeks, I would support 24 weeks.
I want briefly to argue the case for leaving the upper limit as it is at present. For that reason, I have tabled an amendment setting the time limit as near as possible to the present limit. I accept that there is a large body of opinion in this country—medical and otherwise—which accepts 24 weeks, and we have had assurances of that.
Recently I received an answer to a question which 1 had addressed to the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security which stated that a foetus can be, and has been, viable in a small number of cases after 24 weeks. But there is still room for a margin of error, and for that reason I believe that the Act should be left as it is.
I am glad to see that I am not alone in this. As I said earlier, I am a lay person; I am not medically or legally qualified. I have here a letter from the British Medical Association dated 5 February which was addressed to most hon. Members. In it the BMA said:
The Representative Body of the British Medical Association has decided that it cannot support any amendment to the 1967 Act.
If the Representative Body of the BMA, which we know has looked at the Act over many months, can decide that

no amendment is required, that satisfies me. Such a distinguished body of medical opinion should be listened to carefully by the House. We lay great stress on the fact that we are the supreme law-making body. However, we should listen to expert opinion from outside before coming to conclusions. Doctors ought to know, and we have always regarded the BMA as an authoritative body.
I think that to make the period 20 weeks would be appalling. In Committee, the Minister of State, referring to 20 or 22 weeks, said that 22 weeks would be the worst of all possible worlds. I hope that the House will decisively reject the 20 weeks and the 22 weeks and will seriously consider my proposition to insert 27 weeks in place of the existing 28 weeks. In that way the law would remain almost as it is now.
Men and women in the House know that an error of timing can be made. It is easy for both the woman concerned and her doctor to make an error of two weeks or even four weeks when calculating the gestational age of the foetus. Even if the House comes to the conclusion that 24 weeks is the right period, there will still be problems for women because they may be considered to be 24 weeks pregnant when they are not.

Mrs. Dunwoody: No one has yet made the vital point that doctors, rather than make a mistake, will not go beyond a limit which is well within the present 28 weeks. The lower the limit, the more doctors will shorten the time. That is a great danger.

Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to make that point. If we put in the Bill 24 weeks, the majority of doctors will calculate on the basis of 22 weeks or in some cases 20 weeks. That is why 20 weeks is ludicrous. In that event, the effective upper limit would be not 20 weeks but 16 or 18 weeks, and that would remove from many women the right to have a proper abortion.
What numbers of people are we talking about? The arguments have been rehearsed before. A tiny fraction of women have abortions after 20 weeks. An even tinier, minute fraction have abortions after 24 weeks. There is a fail-safe mechanism, as it were, in having an upper time limit,


because that will enable some women to be helped who otherwise would not be helped. We are talking about the less than 1 per cent. of women who have abortions at over 20 weeks—a small minority.
If a woman is the partner of a man in a very good job—a banker or perhaps a well-off consultant—and she wants an abortion at 24 weeks, 28 weeks, or even later, she will be able to get one, as she always could, in the private sector. If she has £250 or whatever it costs—I do not know what it costs at present, but certainly more than is within the purse of most of my constituents, for example—she will be able to get an abortion. Rich women will be able to go on having abortions and the time limit will be for them to decide, as long as those abortions are in the private sector. Poor women will not be able to do so. We should leave the Act virtually as it is, although we should perhaps lower the period by one week.
We hear a lot about sex education in schools. However, it is surprising how many young girls who are still pupils at school do not know about sex. They may find themselves pregnant without realising it. They then become extremely frightened. They do not want to tell their parents and they are frightened to tell their friends. Often, a girl is frightened to go to the nearest family doctor, although he may have brought her into the world and may know all about her. Indeed, the doctor may be shocked that his little patient is about to have a baby. A very young girl may therefore leave her pregnancy too long, as a result of ignorance or of fear.
At the other end of the age scale there are women who are experiencing the menopause. They may have a second family and grown-up children. They think that they are past the age of child-bearing, but to their horror they find that they are pregnant. At first they may not realise it. Such women are also part of the handful of those who need to be protected by a reasonable upper time limit. The mentally and physically handicapped may be unable to get an abortion within the time limit of 20 or 24 weeks because of their particular difficulties.
Most important of all are perhaps those who know and understand about their

pregnancy and who go about it in a sensible and responsible manner. However, they find that they are shunted from one doctor to another, one hospital to another and one area to another. They are unable to get an abortion under the National Health Service. It is not their fault that no decision has been made about the termination of pregnancy. We do not have a decent spread of abortion facilities under the National Health Service. As other hon. Members and I have already said, we would welcome an amendment to the 1967 Act that provided proper day-care abortion units that would be freely available all over the country.
We wish to obviate the obstructions that the Bill will cause. I realise that there are temptations and that there is a great deal of prestigious support for the limit to be set at 24 weeks. However, I beg the House to consider whether it would not be better to leave the upper time limit as it is. The issue should be allowed to rest on the good sense of the doctor, of the woman concerned and of her family. The present upper time limit should therefore be left. The majority of the population want that time limit to remain. They do not want a new upper time limit as it might only cause confusion.

2 pm

Mr. Charles Morrison: Amendment No. 2 sets out to increase the time limit from 20 to 24 weeks. It is pleasant to be connected with an amendment that has already received a considerable amount of support. I do not imagine that it will be supported by the whole House, but it is gratifying to know that it is supported by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
It is a great pity that the Bill did not deal only with the time limit. The vast majority of people in this country are more concerned about the time limit than about any other part of the Bill. A large proportion of letters that we receive in support of the Bill are more concerned about the time limit than about any other aspect. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) did not limit the Bill to the time limit. Should the Bill not complete all its stages, I hope


that the Government will consider the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that they should introduce a short Bill to cover the time limit.
In today's first debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braille) referred to flouting of the law as it exists. I wish the law to be upheld. However, I cannot understand how the law is less likely to be flouted if it is changed.

Sir Bernard Braine: First, the case that I cited this morning showed that the law was clearly being flouted by a doctor, and it is my charge that it is being flouted by others. My hon. Friend is on another point. He says that if the law is being flouted he does not see that it can be improved by changing it. When the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) introduced his Bill in 1966, he told us that in no circumstances would it be used for abortion on demand. Because of the drafting of the Act, the intentions of Parliament are being flouted every day of the week. There is the well-known statistical argument. The amendments that the Bill makes will change that. The Bill will prevent the flouting of the intentions of Parliament in 1967.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is extremely optimistic. I t may well be that if there is a new law it will not be flouted in the same manner. However, in my judgment—and this is one of the reasons why I support the existing legislation—if it is amended as suggested it is much more likely that there will be more flouting of the law in future than there has been up to now. I emphasise again that it is my desire that the law should be upheld, preferably the law as it is now, but, if not, the law according to what the House decides.
It is important to keep the question of the time limit in perspective. We know that the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 16 weeks. Fewer than 1 per cent. are performed after 20 weeks. Therefore, we are talking about a very small proportion at the upper margin. One must ask to whom the 1 per cent. relates—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Other speakers have had a careful hearing. I

think that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is entitled to the same.

Mr. Morrison: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being able to shout down the background noise.
The 1 per cent. of abortions refers particularly to the very young who have concealed their pregnancies, to older women who thought that they were menopausal rather than pregnant, and to disadvantaged women who are unskilled at taking part in what has been termed "the abortion hurdle race."
I direct my attention particularly to young people because the matter has great relevance to that. The 1976 figures show that 522 teenage girls had abortions at 17 weeks or later. Of these, 387 had pregnancies of more than 20 weeks. Also in 1976, 10 per cent. of late abortions at over 20 weeks were carried out on girls of 15 or under. In 1977, 3·57 per cent. of all abortions to those under 15 and 1·74 per cent. of those to 15-year-olds were carried out at 20 weeks or later.
The important point is that these rates for teenagers are the highest among all groups of women except those aged 45 or over. It seems to me that these young people are those whom we should particularly consider. I have no doubt that many abortions would take place earlier if there were better counselling and better National Health Service provision. Also, I have no doubt that many of them would take place earlier among teenagers if the young girls themselves were prepared to face their parents earlier with their problems.

Mr. Richard Needham: If that is so, and the percentages are so small, why would it not be possible to leave the discretion in the hands of the doctors concerned? Why should it be necessary to alter existing legislation? Not only are those concerned small in number, but they are a very small number who must be of particular concern and at particular risk.

Mr. Morrison: I was about to come to that matter. There is a question of the balance of interest between the pregnant woman and the unborn child.
I want to emphasise that in relation to the time limit we are considering a very small number of people who have


not obtained a legal abortion, more often than not because of fear, inadequacy or perhaps stupidity and sometimes because of lack of opportunity. We must balance their interests and those of the unborn child.
That is the dilemma that must be faced in fixing the limit. That is why there should be a limit and why we are considering the matter now. The limit that was acceptable in 1967 is no longer acceptable in the light of new knowledge, advances in medical science, and so on.
There is an argument for leaving the limit at 28 weeks, given the existence of section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which provides:
Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life".
Therefore, the legislation already covers a child capable of being born, or any wilful act causing a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother.
Nevertheless, I think that the vast majority of people now believe that the upper limit should be reduced. The question is to what figure it should be reduced. Should it be 27 weeks, 24 weeks, 22 weeks or 20 weeks? If it were reduced to 20, as the Bill proposes, there is no doubt that in practice many doctors would work to a time limit of considerably less—probably 17 or 18 weeks—simply because of their understandable and justifiable fear of breaking the law.
In my opinion, the certain consequence would be a growth in illegal abortions—and that just at the time when a pregnant woman was entering the most difficult period of the pregnancy. Therefore, it would be bound to increase suffering and perhaps mortalities.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend realise that his argument applies equally to 24 weeks, and that many babies aborted at 24 weeks may have a 26-week gestation age? As we now know for certain that above 24 weeks 50 per cent. of such babies have a chance not

simply of life but of survival, does not he think that he is running a bit of a risk with life? [Interruption.]

Mr. Morrison: I shall make my speech in my own way and, as far as possible, in my own time, despite that interruption from the Strangers' Gallery.
Regarding the question of 24 weeks, I am particularly impressed by the letter written by Dr. Pembrey, senior lecturer at the Institute of Child Health, to the Minister on 23 November 1979. He said:
Before 24 weeks there is no evidence to support the view (reported of Professor Reynolds) that improvements in neonatal intensive care will make such foetuses independently viable. May 1 remind you, as others have done for other reasons, that whilst estimation of gestational age is generally fairly reliable, in an individual case the age may not be certain. The extremely rare cases that survive after being born at say '24–25 weeks gestation' have probably survived because in fact the gestational dating was not precisely correct.
On that basis, Dr. Pembrey strongly urged the Committee to reject any time below 24 weeks as the legal limit. Against that view is that of Professor Reynolds, who says that, because of possible improvements in neonatal intensive care, the limit should be set at 22 weeks.
I believe that we should legislate on the basis of what we know end of what is possible now, not on what may or may not happen at some time in the future. I do not know what will happen in the future. I do not know what advances may be made. Therefore, I am prepared to keep an open mind. I wish to ensure that at this juncture we legislate on the basis of the best available knowledge.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The effect of my amendment No. 48 would be to reduce the period to 22 weeks. The practical effect would be to increase the period within which the operation may lawfully be performed by three weeks over that contemplated under the terms of the Bill.
Hon. Members have dwelt on the 20-week period. If they look at the Bill carefully, they will see that the limitation is effectively one of 19 weeks. The Bill clearly provides that the operation shall not generally be performed if the pregnancy has lasted for fewer than 20 weeks. In other words, the limit is up to and including 19 weeks. In my amendment I voice the views of many hon.


Members and probably the views of most of my constituents. I shall not support the attempts to redraw the statutory criteria. Such an attempt is wholly wrong and I shall oppose it. However, on the narrow question of time the House must be very careful indeed.
The objectionable feature of the present law is not that it allows late abortions in exceptional cases. That itself is not objectionable. The objectionable feature of the present law is, that, theoretically at least, it applies the 28-week limit to the generality of cases. The House should understand what that means. It means that the House is proposing a statute for the generality of cases, which permits the abortion of a foetus which, in the majority of cases, is capable of a viable existence. That is the evidence. At 28 weeks most foetuses are capable of pursuing a separate and independent existence.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Certain tests to establish whether a foetus is likely to be born handicapped can be carried out only after the sixteenth week and such tests must be done at least twice. We are talking about less than 1 per cent. of pregnancies and of women who are likely to give birth to handicapped children.

Mr. Hogg: I am surprised, because I do not believe that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has looked at her Bill closely.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is not my Bill.

Mr. Hogg: The situation is covered by clause 1(b). I do the hon. Lady for Crewe an injustice. She takes the view, understandably, that the Bill is objectionable. However, the Bill covers the risk of malformation and handicap.
When a statute permits abortion at 28 weeks in the generality of cases, it permits what is offensive to many. The objections to late abortions are grave and numerous. The moral objections are considerable. They have been voiced by other hon. Members and I shall not repeat them. There is no doubt that late abortions are profoundly distressing and distasteful to those involved in them.
A statute that offends the moral sense of many and is deeply offensive to the common sense of most tends to bring the whole corpus of law into disrepute. If I am right, the House should be trying

to determine what is the latest possible date for an abortion which does not involve the risk of a viable foetus being aborted. The House should be doing that. That is not a matter of opinion, conjecture or speculation. It is a matter which is clearly covered by the best medical evidence available. [HON. MEMBERS: "That varies."] It does not vary. On certain points it is absolutely plain.
My hon. Friend the Minister read out a letter to the Committee from Professor Reynolds on 29 November. I am not going to read it at length because time is short, but it is important to summarise the conclusions. They go to the root of the debate. The conclusions are that between 28 and 29 weeks there is an 85 per cent. chance of survival, between 26 and 27 weeks approximately a 50 per cent. chance of survival, and between 24 and 25 weeks, according to the professor,
not many, but a few.
I take up the point made by the Minister in Committee. To his own knowledge, there is one authentic case of a viable foetus being aborted at 24 weeks. Below that, at 23 weeks, no case is known. It is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. At 22 weeks, no case is known. There is no prospect of such a birth in the foreseeable future. I suggest, therefore, that the best evidence points to 22 weeks. Atlhough other doctors differ about the conclusions to which Professor Reynolds came in his letter, I am not aware that any of the doctors challenge the statistical data on which his conclusions were founded. The conclusions are a matter for this House. But we must consider the statistical data. If we accept it, we must act on it.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I have only four minutes.

Sir B. Braine: My hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Hogg: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is that we should accept 24 weeks. But the objection to accepting 24 weeks is simply this. In a small minority of cases, a viable foetus will be aborted. I suspect that the evidence underestimates the potential risk of survival. The number of abortions performed after 20 weeks is very small. The


number of abortions performed at 24 weeks is even smaller. The statistical data from which people draw the conclusion that only a small number of foetuses is capable of viable existence at 24 weeks is very narrowly based.
I ask the House not to support any proposition which in the generality of cases legalises the abortion of viable foetuses or even admits of the possibility of that effect. At the same time, I ask the House not to accept a proposition that imposes too low a figure. I agree with what has been said about the great evils that flow from too low a figure. If I am right about the first point and 24 weeks is too high, and if I am right about the second point and 20 weeks is too low, the House has no real alternative. It is a matter of opinion. Fortunately, it is a matter for the House. I believe, personally, that 22 weeks is the period that would be most acceptable to most people in this country. That is the amendment I propose.

Mr. Abse: The contribution made by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) should be considered with great care by the House. The reason why I have put my name to his amendment and support him is that I have come to similar conclusions. The hon. Gentleman is correct that no one could possibly believe that we should have a law under which it is possible, unless there are overriding circumstances, for an abortion to take place when it is known or believed probable that a child could be born alive.
There are two aspects to this matter, the political and the moral. I believe that the House is weary of the abortion debate. It will never be—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 15 February.

DEFENCE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (INQUIRY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 March.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred until Friday 4 July.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (CONTROL OF ADVERTISING, SPONSORSHIP AND SALES PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): What day? No day named.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is impossible for those of us who are seeking to support some of these Bills to know from what quarter objection is coming because of the general noise and discussion which is going on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order for the Chair where objections come from. I do not know either.

HEARING AID COUNCIL ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

SCOTTISH ANGLERS TRUST BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

POLICE AUTHORITIES (POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS LAND DEVELOPMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

MARRIED WOMEN'S POLICIES OF ASSURANCE (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

FURSKINS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

JURY VETTING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

POLICE (SPECIAL INQUIRY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

HYPNOTISM BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. David Crouch: I am most surprised.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 February.

RIGHTS OF PRIVATE TENANTS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What day? No day named.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Ordered,
That Mr. William Whitlock be discharged from the Social Services Committee and Mr. Ron Lewis be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73 A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.),
That the draft Development Board for Rural Wales (Financial Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be a p proved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.

COASTAL POLLUTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Stephen Ross: My subject is not only wide-ranging but somewhat complicated and I am likely to touch only upon the fringes of certain important aspects. I shall not take long because I have promised to afford time to the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson).
Unfortunately, two Departments of State—those of Trade and the Environment—are very much involved in the prevention and treatment of coastal pollution and I suspect that they enjoy playing one off against the other. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), in his place, as I am to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox). I am grateful to them both. The Department of Industry, with its direct connection with research—one thinks of Warren Springs and the research vessel "Seaspring"—as well as the Home Office, is also involved in this matter.
It is, however, upon the local authorities—particularly country and district councils—that the main obligation always falls. The time has surely come to relieve those authorities of the main financial burdens which that inevitably entails.
Over the last six months the Isle of Wight county council and to a lesser extent the county councils of Dorset, Hampshire and East and West Sussex have faced demands on their services which go far beyond the normal call of duty. While those authorities have responded admirably, as one would expect, the drain on their reserves has been beyond all reason. Those demands came at a time when the authorities were under great pressure to cut back on their general services. That kind of expenditure has been most unwelcome.
The fire brigade in particular should be singled out for praise. The firemen in my constituency, wearing heavy suits—they may not keep them on for more than 20 minutes because they are extremely

cumbersome—are obliged to trudge across sand and thick clay to retrieve the many canisters that have come ashore at frequent intervals along the coast since 5 November last year. So far, more than 800 canisters have been retrieved and more are expected.
Although our firemen are doing the job willingly, it is not part of their normal responsibility. What is more, they are handling some pretty nasty substances of which arsenic trichloride, vanadium pent oxide and malic anhydride are the worst. Many pesticides such as menthol crystals and crop sprays such as Kafil can cause serious injury. I am sure that the House would wish me to say "Thanks" to the firemen.
The Minister will be aware of the Chemsafe scheme, which operates on a 24-hour basis and which provides information on canisters whose origins and content are not immediately clear. The Minister referred to this scheme in his letter to me on 28 December last year. It is now rumoured that the data bank in the Chemsafe scheme is to be put on a commercial basis. In other words, local authorities seeking information on the identification of chemicals will be billed for the time taken and the information supplied. If that is correct it is a retrograde step, because a great deal of the material found in canisters is not properly marked.
The main subject of this debate can be put quite simply. It is long past the time when, in my view, the Department of Trade, instead of pussyfooting around, should openly accept the responsibility for dealing with the remains of dangerous wrecks. It is to the credit of the Department that it has established a marine pollution control unit at Southampon under the direction of Admiral Stacey. That unit went into action during the "Tarpenbek" incident. The unit has its own expertise and the ability to draw on that of others, and the staff have a considerable knowledge of this kind of pollution. I accept that absolutely.
We in the Isle of Wight did not like having that 1,785 ton tanker deposited in Sandown Bay, though I accept that that was probably all that could be done at the time. We appreciate the professional and expert way in which the oil was removed and the ship righted. The report published on the "Tarpenbek"


incident in December says at paragraph 5:
At no time did the Department of Trade assume control of the salvage operation whether by formal intervention or otherwise.
That is utter nonsense. If Admiral Stacey was not in charge, who was? I do not think it was the Minister. I shall quote the words of the admiral, who described his role as "decision by negation". As the county council says in its comments on the report:
The determination by the Department of of Trade to have decisive influence over decision making but to seek to avoid financial liability for the outcome, bedevilled much of the incident.
The county council submitted its own comments on the report. I hope that both Ministers—and particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Trade—will read the reports, because they are pertinent to the case that I am trying to make. The county council makes a number of excellent proposals which I hope will be taken on board. Someone has to have overall control, so let it be Admiral Stacey or his successor, whoever that may ultimately be.
Secondly, the Department of the Environment should also face up squarely to its responsibilities and immediately reimburse the local authorities for their expenditure on pollution of their beaches, whether it be oil or chemicals, which has come from accidents over which the local authorites have had no control whatever.
Of course, one accepts that it is only right that the polluter should pay, but getting the money from the shipowner or his insurers can be a long and wearisome business, as I am sure Norfolk county council is finding out. After three or four years it is still owed £3½ million.
In the meantime, the hard-pressed ratepayer has to foot the bill. Governments and Government Departments have, after all, far more clout and muscle in these matters. They have all the information at their fingertips. They know who are the owners of a vessel, or they can soon find out the name of the insurers. Very often this information is not available at local level; in fact, in the case of the "Aeolian Sky" it is still not available to the Isle of Wight county council. The Government have the legal expertise at their fingertips. They cart sequestrate the goods

of shipowners, if necessary. It is logical, therefore, that they should take responsibility.
To add insult to injury, when we in the Isle of Wight hired equipment from the Department of the Environment for the "Tarpenbek" incident, it had to come from the Bristol depot, and we were sent a bill for £25,000, plus an additional sum for transport. Yet we had no real say in the decision to move that ship to our waters. I ask that that bill be cancelled forthwith and also any charge for transport.
The "Aeolian Sky" was deliberately towed to Portland, where she unfortunately sank before she could be got into Weymouth. With the prevailing south-westerlies, we are now getting all the side effects. That applies all the way up the Sussex coast. If it is the case that the Solent area and Poole harbour are to be used more frequently as a shelter area for stricken vessels, it is surely only right that we should be given adequate financial compensation when spills occur. In other words, the Government must pick up the bill and reimburse us as the money is spent.
The operation of retrieving canisters is costing us well over £.3,000 a month. It will increase rapidly now because we had a new deposit in Brook Bay the day before yesterday. It is not a burden that, in these difficult times, the local authorities in our constituencies should have to carry.
Unless the cargo of the "Aeolian Sky" is retrieved soon, it is likely to have an adverse effect on our tourist trade. The headlines which have been appearing lately in the national and local press put off potential holidaymakers. This is the time when people are making their bookings for the coming season. They are not exactly encouraged by headlines such as
Instant death alert…South's beaches in front line",
which appeared in the Sunday Mirror. Similar headlines have appeared in local papers. Another headline read:
Deadly cargo may hit holiday homes.
This is what is happening at the moment.
I tabled a question to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and received the


answer only yesterday. It was most unsatisfactory. I was told that
Attempts to identify and locate cargo more precisely and to recover it from the ship would be a protracted operation and could not safely be undertaken until late spring."—[Official Report, 7 Febuary 1980; Vol. 978, c. 298.]
However, that will be too late for us. If divers can work in poor conditions in the North Sea, why cannot they do so off Portland? We know already that some of the items from the vessel's hold have been coming ashore. We have been told that they are mainly from the deck, but there is now stuff coming out of the hold. The manifold that has been supplied is far from a comprehensive document. Sometimes it refers to a case, but a case can contain 42, 75 or 1,500 canisters. These are the problems that we are facing, and a lot of the stuff is having to be put into store because there is no way to get rid of it.
One company, ICI, has been very helpful and has taken its chemicals away quickly. In the case of others which have come from Germany for retailing in this country, we cannot get rid of them and are having to store them, at great expense. Nor, incidentally, is it a matter of ease to identify the actual cartons. There is something there that needs attention, but I cannot go into the matter at length now.
The continuing nuisance cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely. I therefore ask for urgent action now and reimbursement without delay of the costs of the operation falling on our local authorities, who are the innocent victims in the whole saga and whose patience is rapidly becoming exhausted.
I have not dealt with the whole subject of supervision of our Channel waters or the role of the oil companies. I agree that some oil companies are already playing a role in this field. They could play an increasing part if we had a proper chain of command. However, I hope that I have said enough to show that we are becoming increasingly concerned at recent events, and we expect some clear-cut policy decisions from the Government.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: First, I thank the hon. Member

for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for his courtesy in allowing me to intervene in this debate. I shall make only two brief points.
Pollution is a national problem, and it is surely totally unreasonable that the cost of dealing with these accidents and incidents should fall only upon the ratepayers of the coastal belts. I know that in my own area a massive operation has been under way to locate the canisters and to neutralise them—involving the police force of my area, council workers, firemen and others. This costs a great deal of money. It is absolutely wrong that this cost should fall upon my ratepayers in Brighton and those in the two counties as a whole.
This matter concerns all Members of Parliament who represent East and West Sussex. We hope that the Government will take very prompt action. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made a very important point when he said that it is easier for the Government to get this money back than it is for local authorities.
The other quick point I wish to make is concerned with events when an accident takes place. When a ship goes down, instant action should be taken to find out what is on board, and if there is anything dangerous on board action should be taken to get it out. Do we know how many canisters are left on the ship? If not, should not we find out very quickly and neutralise them? I cannot help feeling that if that ship had been full of gold bars it would have been crawling with divers. I hope that my parliamentary colleagues on the ministerial Bench will work very quickly.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for allowing me briefly to associate myself with his remarks. In doing so, I should like to say that I am joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
There has been similar concern in my constituency, but a great deal of it has been alleviated—and in this respect I thank both Ministers on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade—by the action that has been taken in recent years.


My association of parish councils is very much reassured by the work that is being done by the new supremo to try to alleviate concern.
The only point I make is that there is a particular difficulty in dealing, on the one hand, with the obvious horror of an oil slick, and, on the other hand, the hidden menace of canisters containing dangerous materials coming ashore. They present different problems and different challenges. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will assure me that they will be using every means at their disposal to draw the public's attention to the serious dangers involved. No opportunity must be lost to make this absolutely clear, because recently there have been cases, I understand, of these canisters being opened with tin openers by people in their garages. It is a very serious problem, and I hope that my hon. Friends will reassure us.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for raising the subject of coastal pollution and creating this opportunity to consider some of the questions raised by two incidents, involving the "Tarpenbek" and the "Aeolian Sky", which have caused a great deal of concern on the Isle of Wight and along the South Coast. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) for their interventions.
All of us are deeply concerned about the potentially lethal containers washed up recently on our beaches. I immediately give an assurance on behalf of the Department of Trade and the Department of the Environment that we shall do all in our power to minimise these dangers.
I congratulate and thank the authorities on the Isle of Wight and elsewhere along the coast and all those who, by their care and watchfulness, have collected and dealt with the canisters washed ashore during the last few months.
Responsibility in connection with the maritime aspects of shipping casualties such as the "Tarpenbek" and "Aeolian Sky" rests with my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State for Trade and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is here today, but my understanding of the course of events relating to those particular incidents is briefly as follows.
First, I deal with the "Tarpenbek". This small tanker was in collision in an exposed position off Selsey Bill. As a result of the damage she sustained, she latercapsized in severe weather, but her cargo tanks remained intact. The problem facing the salvors was how to remove the cargo of lubricating oil with the minimum risk to life and limb and to the environment. The vessel was in distress and needed a safe refuge to enable the necessary salvage operations to take place.
The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to rehearse in detail the arguments for seeking to carry out such difficult and dangerous operations in a place of comparative shelter. I would refer him to the report—indeed, he has already referred to it—entitled "The Tarpenbek Incident" issued by the Department of Trade, a copy of which was placed in the Library. The general case for moving shipping casualties to shelter is made in paragraphs 34 to 38, and these arguments are related to the "Tarpenbek" incident in paragraphs 39 to 47. I think, too, that we need to put this in perspective and we have to recognise that the geographical accident which provides the Isle of Wight inhabitants with their superb amenity beaches also provides a safe haven for some ships in distress. But I take note of what was said about wrecks and how they should be dealt with, as I am sure my hon. Friend will have done. We should not forget that, whilst off Selsey Bill, the "Tarpenbek" was a potential threat to all the beaches of the Isle of Wight, Hampshire and West Sussex. Therefore the successful outcome of this venture, with no oil coming ashore, endorses the wisdom of the operation decision.
I now turn to the "Aeolian Sky". This general cargo vessel was in collision off the Casquets, some 43 miles south-west of the Isle of Wight, and was badly damaged. She was taken in tow and headed for the South Coast of England. Because of her deep draught, in her damaged condition she could not safely enter either Portsmouth or Southampton and instead made westwards towards Weymouth Bay. She sank during passage


some 12 miles east of Portland Bill. Under no circumstances and at no time was the vessel moved to the Isle of Wight.
Following the sinking, the Department of Trade established that the vessel was carrying several consignments of chemicals, most of which had orginated in the United Kingdom. The Department was able quickly to obtain a copy of the manifest of declared dangerous goods and of the cargo stowage plan.
A diver went down to examine the vessel as soon as the weather permitted. He was able to establish that the vessel lay on its side and that some hatch covers were off. However, because of the extremely short time in which diving was practicable, and the poor visibility prevailing, it was not possible to identify individual items of chemicals. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, as I understand it, no amount of money could have tempted anyone with any sense to stay near this vessel any longer.
Because of the difficult and dangerous conditions for diving at this time of the year, it has not been possible to determine what remains in the ship—not that this was not felt to be necessary—to attempt the lengthy operation required in order to recover the cargo. The Department of Trade is, however, keeping the situation under close review and maintaining close contact with the local authorities concerned.
The hon. Member has suggested that the central Government should play a bigger part in the onshore operations when in incidents of this kind pollution from ships threatens the shore and, in particular, should carry more, if not all, of the financial burden of such operations, at least until the costs are eventually recovered from the shipowners and their insurers.
I should, first of all, correct any impression that the central Government are indifferent to the problems local authorities face in protecting the coast and people's lives and that they leave the consequences of dealing with pollution from wrecks entirely to the local authorities. As I have said, dealing with shipping casualties at sea is firstly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. There is a broad division of responsibility in dealing with pollution whereby the Department of Trade

operates at sea and the local authorities close inshore or on the beach. But this division is applied in the most flexible manner and in all its operations my right hon. Friend's Department works in close liaison with the local authorities involved.
The "Tarpenbek" incident was the first oil tanker accident off our shores since the setting up of the special unit in the Department of Trade to deal with such incidents. The hon. Member has already referred to the unit under Rear-Admiral Stacey which was involved throughout and ensured that what little pollution escaped from the vessel was quickly dealt with and that the interests of the local authorities were safeguarded to the maximum extent possible in the circumstances. Admiral Stacey was able to keep the local authorities constantly in the picture on the progress of the operations and the nature of the risks involved. A good relationship was established.
In response to the question about who is in charge, the salvors are in charge in that they ultimately have to meet the bills. Admiral Stacey has an advisory capacity.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I must object to that. It may have worked on the "Tarpenbek" incident, but I do not think that it will work on every one. I ask the Minister to look at the comments that we made on the report, because some aspects of co-operation were most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am sure that in those circumstances Admiral Stacey and the Department of Trade would take charge.
This incident was also the first in which the central Government were able to give direct and immediate aid in the form of specialised oil pollution clearance equipment which was made available from the Government's stockpile at Bristol on request from the Isle of Wight local authority. The arrangements which were made for call-out and delivery of a considerable amount of equipment were most satisfactory, and I understand that Isle of Wight county council officials have expressed their satisfaction with this aspect of the operations. I shall come to the question of payment for the use of the stockpile in a moment.
In the case of the containers of chemicals such as those from the "Aeolian


Sky", the local authorities' principal need is for specialised advice on the hazard presented by chemicals that may be washed ashore.
In the case of the "Aeolian Sky", the local authorities were given all the information that was available on what she was carrying from the dangerous cargo manifest. Since the general cargo manifest has become available, it has emerged that some items of chemicals may not have been included in the dangerous cargo manifest and a check is now being made of the items in the general manifest. All coastal authorities have advice about what action to take when chemicals are washed ashore, what help is available—from the coastguards and the fire services, for example—and sources of specialist advice in the Government's scientific advisers, from the continuously manned chemical emergencies centre at Harwell and from the chemical industry's Chemsafe scheme. The chemical industry, in the shape of ICI, is always willing to help. I have been concerned to see that the Isle of Wight authorities have all the technical help they need, and I believe that their contingency plans for dealing with hazardous chemicals washed ashore have so far proved effective, as indeed has action taken elsewhere on the South Coast.
Local authorities, I am sure, accept that they are the best people to deal with the consequences of coastal pollution. The question is: should they receive more financial help? To some degree, day-to-day costs incurred by local authorities in dealing with coastal pollution are a factor in the calculation of the rate support grant. This was not always so. Until 1974, there was a specific grant for expenditure in cleaning up oil pollution, but the local authorities agreed that this should be abolished and accepted full responsibility themselves. I think that that was right.
Nevertheless, I fully appreciate the concern of some authorities, such as the Isle of Wight and others, about the possible costs of dealing with the consequences of particular wrecks.
The ultimate responsibility for meeting the costs of cleaning up must rest with the polluter. We must, I am sure, hold firmly to the principle that the polluter should pay and should expect the proper costs incurred in dealing with

the pollution and its consequences to be recovered in full. Without making any comment on specific cases, I can say that the compensation regime, at least for oil pollution damage, is quite comprehensive. It was thoroughly reviewed only last year.
I also believe that it is essential that, in the interests both of good financial control and of justifying a claim against the polluter, the initial costs should be met by those who have operational responsibility, despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown—in other words, the local authorities.
This may mean that sometimes a local authority has to find money to meet the immediate costs, but only temporarily until the costs—and it can claim interest on any loan—are met by the polluter. I find it extremely difficult to imagine a situation in which a local authority in these circumstances would be unable to find the necessary finance; that would mean that the authority in such circumstances would be insolvent. But, if that ever were to occur, I am sure that ways would be found to enable the authority to overcome its temporary problems. I shall not speculate what these ways might be as the event seems so unlikely. But I see no need for central Government to put local authorities in funds pending the recovery of their costs from the polluter.
In relying generally on the fact that normally the local authority's full costs will be recovered, I recognise, of course, that, as in all emergencies, and notwithstanding the general rule, there may be occasions when local authorities are left to bear heavy expenditure.
For this reason, the Government recognise that special assistance may exceptionally be justified to relieve a local authority of what would otherwise be an undue burden on its local resources. In these cases, applications for special assistance are dealt with on their merits, in the light of the nature of the incident and the cost to the local authority in relation to its financial resources. I am talking here of very exceptional cases: I would not think that in the case of the two incidents that I have described the local authorities' expenditure has been of a scale to justify this special assistance.
Perhaps I can now deal with the point about charging the Isle of Wight county


council for hire of equipment. At the time of the "Tarpenbek" incident, my Department was setting up a stockpile of specialised pollution clearance equipment. This equipment is intended to supplement local authorities' own resources and a charge will normally be made for its use. Some of this equipment was called out by the Isle of Wight county council in anticipation of pollution from the "Tarpenbek."
When the equipment was issued, the county council was told that charges would be made for its hire and a bill for approximately £25,000 was subsequently presented. This was the first time that the equipment had been called out and the basis of charging was at that time still under discussion. To that extent, the bill presented to the Isle of Wight was an interim one.
The discussions on hire charges that that have been taking place over the last few months have now been completed and agreement has been reached on a revised formula for dealing with cases where equipment is called out in anticipation of pollution that does not in the event occur. We are very conscious of the need not to deter local authorities from calling out the equipment in good time when pollution is threatened, and that is why we feel it right that there should be special arrangements for charging in cases such as "Tarpenbek", where equipment is called out but not in the event used.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the news that a revised invoice is being issued to the Isle of Wight county council. The invoice has been reduced to approximately £2,000, which represents the actual costs of transporting the equipment. I must stress that that revised charge is a result of reaching agreement on the general principles of charging and is in no way related to the decision of the salvors and owners to tow the "Tarpenbek" to Sandown Bay or the Government's involvement in that decision. Had the equipment been used to

deal with pollution, the full charge of £25,000 would have stood. Of course, the £2,000 for transport will be included in the Isle of Wight claim on the owners of the "Tarpenbek".
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends will take some reassurance from what I have said. The Government recognise fully the need for those dealing with incidents at sea to work closely with the local authorities. They are ready to support local authorities with technical advice and equipment when those are needed. Together with the authorities, the Government are also drawing up a contingency plan for dealing with a really major disaster, such as the "Amoco Cadiz", which would clearly be beyond the capacity of any local authority to cope with on its own. Fortunately, the two recent incidents that affected the Isle of Wight were not on this major scale, although the "Tarpenbek" incident would have had very serious consequences if it had not been handled successfully. Some of the containers being washed up now can certainly be very dangerous.
The care that the local authority is taking is fully justified, and people who find containers on the South Coast should certainly hand them in at once. I hope that before long, when the full manifest has been checked, it will be possible to draw up a balance sheet of what was on the ship and what has now been accounted for so that we may know better the size of the remaining problem, and that in the spring inspection of the cargo can be made and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be in a position to decide what best can be done with the wreck to minimise the remaining hazard.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends will accept my assurance that both Departments will do all that they can to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock